washington – Houghton STAR

This past Saturday, November 1, Brittany Maynard ended her own life with lethal medications prescribed to her for this purpose. The 29-year-old California resident was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer earlier this year, and soon after left California. She moved to Oregon to be covered under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.

From the time of diagnosis until her death, Maynard was an active advocate of Death With Dignity. According to CNN, this movement “advocates that terminally ill patients be allowed to receive medication that will let them die on their own terms.” In order to be eligible to receive prescriptions for fatal medications like the one Maynard used to end her life, one must be diagnosed with a terminal illness and have a life-expectancy of less than 6 months. Maynard chose to end her life with a mixture of water, sedatives, and respiratory-system depressants.

Before her death, Maynard used multiple social media platforms to argued in favor of terminally ill people and their right to make informed choices on how they choose to die. One video she posted on YouTube explaining her decision received over eleven million views. Maynard also partnered with Compassion & Choices, a non-profit organization devoted to educating, advocating, and working “to protect and expand options at the end of life,” to develop thebrittanyfund.org, a website about her own journey and a platform to advocate for end-of-life options. In Maynard’s obituary, posted to her website, it stated “she wished that her home State of California had also been able to provide terminally ill patients with the same choice.”

Statements such as these have sparked nationwide conversation about whether Death With Dignity is a right that should be affordable to all. Voices from both sides of the argument have been heard about aid-in-dying practices. Responses have ranged from calling Maynard’s decision “unethical” to calling it “brave.” According to NBC News, lawmakers from New Jersey and Connecticut have spoken out in support of Death With Dignity bills.

There are currently five states that have laws providing aid-in-dying practices. Oregon acted as the trendsetter, initiating its law in 1997. According to the Death With Dignity National Center, Oregon has provided “years of data show[ing] the law is safe and utilized the way it’s intended with no evidence of a slippery slope for vulnerable Oregonians.” This has led to the legislation of Death With Dignity laws in Washington (2008), Montana (2009), Vermont (2013), and New Mexico (2014). Maynard’s death has sparked new life in those fighting for the right to Die With Dignity.

Hopes are rising as possible breakthroughs are underway in the deadlock gripping world powers concerning the Syrian civil war. This is a result of a possible United Nations resolution calling for international control of the Syrian government’s chemical weapons stockpile currently being considered.

Mideast_Syria-08c3c — Courtesy of www.washingtonpost.com

During talks at the recent G-20 meeting of the top twenty world economic powers, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in an offhand comment that Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad could avoid American airstrikes if his government handed over “every single bit” of its chemical weapons stockpile to the international community. Later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Russia had taken Kerry’s comments into consideration and would propose a “feasible, clear and concrete plan” that would focus on Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

After the deaths of over 1,400 civilians in a suburb in the Syrian capital Damascus on August 21, U.S. President Barack Obama threatened limited military strikes against the regime of President Assad as punishment. Obama, however, has mustered little international support as Britain, a close U.S. ally, voted against participating in airstrikes against Assad. French President Francoise Hollande supports military action against Syria, but is reluctant to intervene without greater support from the international community. Domestically, Obama faces an uphill battle in his bid to win congressional support before authorizing military strikes. After 12 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, many Americans oppose more involvement in another Middle Eastern conflict.

Some countries do support U.S. airstrikes in Syria. Saudi Arabia, a vocal critic of Assad and supplier of weapons to Syrian rebels, implored the Arab League to endorse airstrikes. Turkey, a one-time close ally of Assad but now a supporter of his overthrow, has also called for airstrikes. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin is a staunch opponent of outside intervention in Syria, warning of the serious consequences of what could follow if the U.S. follows through on its threats against Assad.

Syria is a main purchaser of Russian weaponry and is Moscow’s last Cold War-era ally in the Middle East. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and with the power to veto any and all sanctions, Russia has rejected all Western-backed resolutions that condemn Assad’s regime and call for his resignation. Instead, Putin has called for dialogue between the Assad regime and the rebels seeking to overthrow him. Moscow also endorses the creation of a transitional government that includes Assad. Consequently, Washington and Moscow have been at constant odds over creating a unified international response to the Syrian civil war. Plans for peace talks in Geneva, Switzerland between the Syrian government and rebel officials collapsed and for much of the G-20 meeting the U.S. and Russia remained divided, particularly regarding airstrikes.

But with this potential resolution calling for Assad to hand over Syria’s chemical weapons, the permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China, seem to be inching closer to an agreement. France is adding on to Russian proposals by calling for a clause that specifically condemns the chemical attacks. Assad, seeking to avoid potential U.S. airstrikes, has accepted the Russian resolution. If Assad fails to comply with the resolution, however, his regime will, again, face the threat of military strikes in consequence.

Since its beginning in March 2011, the civil war in Syria has claimed over 100,000 lives. Nearly a third of the country’s population has been displaced and millions of Syrians have fled abroad as refugees.