"How to Die in Oregon" made me less afraid of death

I'm going to die eventually. And I live in Oregon. So it figures that the award-winning 2011 documentary "How to Die in Oregon" would be of considerable interest to me. 

In 1997 Oregon became the first state to allow terminally-ill people to end their lives through self-administered lethal medications if a physician certified they had six months or less to live. It's officially called the Death With Dignity Act, but often is midleadingly referred to as physician-assisted suicide.

The movie shows that suicide isn't what terminally-ill people are doing when they choose to control the time and place of their death, rather than being subject to the vicissitudes of a painful, debilitating fatal disease.

They're doing just what the name of the Oregon Act says: dying with dignity. 

I recorded "How to Die In Oregon" months ago when it was first shown on HBO. Since, until a few days ago, it's sat on our DVR, passed over for other programs when we wanted to watch something -- mostly because of me.

My wife would say, "Why don't we watch How to Die in Oregon tonight?" I'd tell her, "Please, let's not. Too depressing." 

I was wrong. Very wrong.

I was deeply moved by the movie in some highly positive ways. If you're like me, scared to death of, well, death, you've got to find a way to see "How to Die in Oregon." (It'll probably be available on Netflix eventually.)

After the movie ended my wife said to me, "I'm surprised you liked it so much, given how you feel about dying." She probably was thinking of how, when we sat down with an attorney to discuss our wills/living trusts, I insisted that the attorney say "gerbils" instead of "dies" when she was referring to my eventual demise.

So rather than say "When Brian dies..." our attorney would say "When Brian gerbils..." This made the discussion easier for me to handle, though my alternative word demand must have confused any of her colleagues who overheard us talking.

The older I get (I'm 63 now), the easier it is for me to envision my death. Or rather, dying, because my bet is that after I die my consciousness will be as dead as my body, so I won't be aware that death has happened. 

"How to Die in Oregon" made me feel even better about dying.

From the opening scene to the final credits, I was mesmerized as I watched the movie, fascinated by how positive, upbeat, humorous, and courageous the people were who took advantage of Oregon's Death With Dignity law.

Even as they were drinking the liquid mixture of barbituates that would put them into a coma, and then cause them to die.

A review by Ebert at the Movies mentions how the first man shown looks into the camera and says, "Tell the next person this stuff tastes woody!" He's marvelously alert, aware, and blunt as he thanks the voters of Oregon for giving him this option to end his life on his own terms, not that of his disease.

(Watch the review to see some moving scenes from the movie; also, watch the trailer, where the above-mentioned man is shown at the beginning saying he knows what the medications will do: "It will kill me and make me happy.")

"How to Die in Oregon" shows how people act when they know this is the last day, hour, or minute they'll be alive. It's incredibly moving to share these moments. I'm grateful they and their families were so welcoming of the camera crew.

What a gift. The movie is transforming. At least, it was for me. I'll never look upon dying in the same way again. Or living.

Because the terminally ill people shown in "How to Die in Oregon" teach us how to make the most of our last moments. Which could come upon us at any moment, given that death usually can't be predicted.

There were a few allusions to an afterlife in the movie, but I can't recall any explicit displays of religiosity from those who chose the death with dignity option. Of course, most people who choose to die at a time and place of their own choosing likely aren't highly religious.

Mostly, the movie shows them living their last moments honestly, bravely, light-heartedly, warmly. They were supported by friends and family. They were sustained by nature (gardening, walks in a park). They trusted that when it was the right time to die, they'd know it.

I've struggled with a fear of death for much of my life. "How to Die in Oregon" taught me that there's a simple way to deal with that fear: don't be afraid. I realize those three words may not make much sense to someone who hasn't seen the movie.

If so, see it.

This film is like no other. It looks straight into the eyes of death, a subject that most of us dance around rather than embrace. (The Ebert video review says that at the Sundance Film Festival showing, the theatre was half empty; people wrongly thought the movie would be a downer.)

After watching the movie, my wife and I can't understand how anyone could argue that death with dignity shouldn't be an option for everybody. Every state in this country, and every country in the world, needs to pass similar laws.

When death is inevitable -- and even when it isn't -- people who aren't seriously depressed or mentally ill should be able to decide whether they want to keep on living. Why should anyone else be able to make that choice for someone? 

God almost certainly is an illusion. Death is real. The main objection to death with dignity is religious, which makes no sense. Illusions can't be allowed to overrule reality.

(Here's a good review of the movie.)

Comments

[George]

I think the option should be made available.

Oregon sounds like a very progressive state. The laws in most countries in europe are positively backward on this, you have to go to switzerland and pay a small fortune, its a lot of rubbish.

When an animal is suffering, everyone knows the humane thing to do is to put it down to prevent suffering - why should it be any different for a human being?

Brian, talking about documentaries made in oregon, I suppose you have seen "What the Bleep do we know?"

[Juliano]

But find out IF the people going to die are 'allowed' to be able to have psychedelics or MDMA? I am guessing not? But I would be interested to find out

[D]

You are right about the film. I'm pretty much your age and in good health, but it is transformational. In November I had a chance to see it as part of a philosophy department event at Sacramento State University in California. My new book What You Wish For also covers this ground in the form of a family saga, a family grappling with the death of loved ones, while not all agreeing on how the person's wishes should be respected. Anyone interested can learn more about it at http://tinyurl.com/bp-booksite

[Brian Hines]

George, I did indeed see "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Here's a blog post where I talk about it some:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/05/quantum-gods-debunks-spiritual-pseudoscience.html

Like I said, the quantum spirituality in the movie is 99% bullshit and 1% science. Better than traditional religion, I guess, but not much.

[George]

yeah, this clip does a pretty good job of bullshit detection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo

Had a laugh at around minute 6:00 where he shows the grizzly and asks is it a bunny rabbit.

Ppl are mad. the worst thing about these new age things is they have understood just enough about QM to be truly dangerous, which means they've actually understood nothing.

They take an element of truth and then stretch it to fit their own particular beliefs or premise. Chopra is another who is a complete charlatan.

The best book of this type was what started it all off, the tao of physics, by capra, whose training in physics allowed him to write pretty good opening chapters on QM and mysticism, but then in his 3rd chapter he makes his leap by trying to stretch and marry these ideas, as if science is old hat.

What I want to know is why can't the mystics make a straightforward claim to knowledge? Why is it that QM is only used to support new age bullshit? Why cant mystics make a claim about the world, which science has not yet discovered? If science is only the tip of the iceberg compared to mysticism, where is all this great mystical knowledge and why is it not widely available?

Science says here is my claim and the evidence for it, open to the public to check for bullshit, go ahead and prove me wrong. Mysticism says the complete opposite, its all a big secret, its all about vagueness, mystery and being hidden, why? Why not make their claims about the world open for all to validate and test?

[Lynne Lee C.]

I watched the film. I think that people should have this option...even if not terminal. I have non-malignant chronic pain. Non-malignant is a misnomer because it will almost certainly eventually kill me. I'd appreciate the choice to have a hospice like assistance when it reaches that point. I do believe in God and was sad to watch the christian protestors fight that wonderful woman who was (and did!)trying to keep her promise to her dying husband to not let others have to suffer like he was forced to but have the choice to die with dignity. Religion is the problem not God. Anyway, if the gov't is going to continue its war on chronic pain victims and the physicians who try to help us they should at least help us opt out.

[M]

Jesus didn't get to "opt out" of the suffering, why should we? And what if it's all part of the intended process?

[Brian Hines]

M, why should anyone care what Jesus supposedly did? There's no proof that what the Bible says about Jesus is true. And whether Jesus existed or not, why should any person base his/her life on someone else's life? Would you buy a car simply because some famous person says, "Buy this car!"

We should live our own life, following our own values, than copy someone else's life. Also, I'm curious why you don't cite Buddha, Muhammed, Moses, Lao Tzu, or Krishna as exemplars we should emulate. Why Jesus? Maybe these other guys have more to teach us than Jesus. Or, not.

[Melissa]

Although I have not seen the movie, I was with you on this post until the very end. Your idea of god being an illusion is, for lack of a better way to put it, wrong. Allow me to explain.
First of all, 'god' is highly subjective. God could be a giant living on a cloud, or god could be the sun, or god could be multiple gods and goddesses, or god could be energy, all depending on who you talk to.
Secondly, even if god was something that appears to be highly unlikely to you, that same something could appear highly likely to someone else. Therefore, regardless of if god is not real in your mind, god could be entirely real to someone else.
Although I do agree with the idea that personal religion should not be used to impact the lives of others with differing views, it seems to me that saying "God almost certainly is an illusion...illusions can't be allowed to overrule reality" is dangerously close to "that person's religious beliefs are wrong and we can't allow that". Please keep on the road of open mindedness, too many it seems are easily swayed to one extreme or the other.

[Brian Hines]

Melissa, I'm very open-minded about God and the supernatural. And I have no problem with people believing in whatever they want to believe in.

What I object to is people mistaking subjectivity for objectivity. Like you said, a god could be anything at all. Or, more likely, nothing at all.

I'm under no obligation to support anyone's subjective beliefs if they claim those beliefs reflect an objective reality. It's entirely appropriate to say "You're wrong" in such a circumstance.

If someone yelled at me, "Rap music is the best music in the world and you should like it!" I'd reply, "You're wrong." Ditto if someone tells me that his/her vision of god is true, and I should believe it. I'd also say "You're wrong."

If god isn't an illusion, show me some proof. Since no one can, this leaves god in the realm of subjective opinion. Thus the religious believers shown in this movie who wanted to prevent other people from dying as they wanted to also have to be told "You're wrong."

God has no place in deciding social policy. Fantasies shouldn't determine our laws. Reason, rationality, and commonly held values should. One of those values, hopefully, is individual autonomy at the end of life. Religion wants to interfere with that, which is one reason I don't like religion.

[Roger]

Melissa,

Maybe, one way to put it is,

While God is subjective and a possible illusion, we all are not qualified to say that God absolutely doesn't exist. We just don't know the existence and non-existence.
This issue is one big mystery.

This is why the atheist is not/should not create a belief system in the non-existence of God.