In early 2013, Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer. She passed away Nov. 1, 2014 after an almost two year-long battle. However, it wasn’t the terminal disease that killed her. Instead, she died after taking a deadly medication that she consumed herself.

Maynard had moved to Oregon following her diagnosis, but not because of the natural splendor of the state. Rather, she moved there because Oregon is one of only five states in the country with an act which allows mentally competent and terminally ill adults to take matters in their own hands by ending their lives with a medication prescribed by a doctor.

Instead of waiting for the cancer to end her life, as it eventually and inevitably would, Maynard chose to experience her few remaining months hiking and traveling and spending time with those she loved. Surrounded by cherished family with husband Dan Diaz by her side, Maynard passed away in the comforts of her own bedroom.

Although loved by many, her memory was not the only legacy she left behind on that day. Her husband, family, and friends, following her wishes, have become firm supporters of the Death with Dignity Movement, which raises money and petitions for other states to follow in the path of Oregon, and more recently and unofficially, New York.

Yet this organization has not gotten to where it is through a lack of criticism. Choosing to die of one’s own accord is more than simply pulling the plug on life support. It is choosing an exact moment and method and living in full anticipation of it.

Should a terminally ill individual choose to take this fate upon themselves, they would be granted the prescription by a licensed physician but that is where the monitoring ends. It is up to them to fulfil it and up to them to ingest it. According to Maynard, many people never actually consume the medication, but it provides the peace of possessing the method to end life peacefully, legally, and as desired.

Yet, the ability to possess the medication without ever consuming it brings up the problem of misuse. If unmonitored, it could easily be consumed accidentally by a child or pet or even purposefully by a curious or suicidal individual.

Furthermore, there becomes the issue of misuse and immorality by the individual prescribed as well as his/her doctor. Should a person who is suffering but not terminally ill convince a physician to prescribe the medication anyway, they would legally be allowed to consume it.

I believe that the act is not represented in enough states. A mentally competent adult suffering from a terminal disease should be able to choose to die on their own terms and in their own time. However, they should not have access to the medication itself. Rather, the prescription should only be claimed by the prescribing doctor before the act occurs. Furthermore, the consumption should be witnessed by an official.

While it would not affect a belief of morality, this would eliminate the concerns of misuse while still allowing a person their right to death with dignity.