The Supreme Court Case Of Washington V. Glucksberg

Assisted suicide is a topic that has ignited a severe debate due to the controversy that surrounds its implementation. Assisted suicide occurs when a patients expresses their intention to die and request a physician to assist them in the process. Some countries like Oregon, Canada, and Belgium have legalized the process terming it as an alternative to prolonged suffering for patients who are bound to die. Unlike euthanasia where a physician administers the process, assisted suicide requires that the patient voluntarily initiates and executes the process. Although there exists concession such a process is important to assist patients die without much suffering, there has emerged criticism on its risk of abuse and as an expression of medical

This is important because there are so many diseases with no cure, so people just have to deal with this agony. Assisted suicide won’t be ending a patient's life, but putting them in a better place, where they won’t have to go through six more months of pain. Patients have the right to die! Individual rights is a Constitutional Principle they have, because they're United States citizens. Would you want to live in a hospital bed for years, knowing you could die any minute? Wouldn’t you want to die with dignity, without pain. Federalism gives each state the option of allowing assisted suicide. Today only six states allow it: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Montana, Colorado, and even though it’s not a state, Washington DC.

Brittany Maynard, a woman known for her advocacy in the controversial topic of assisted suicide, officially ended her life this fall after learning of her fatal brain tumor. After complaining of horrible headaches, she decided to see a doctor where they gave her this traumatic news. She had two corrective surgeries to try and stop the growth of her large tumor, but they were unsuccessful. Her doctor then suggested full brain radiation, but after months of researching this option, along with many other, she knew her quality of what short life she had left would quickly deteriorate. With the help of her family, friends, and newly-wed husband, she made the decision to move with her loved ones from her California home to Oregon, where death with

According to the Fourteenth Amendment of The Constitution of The United States, the State cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Indeed, a terminally ill patient has the Constitutional right to decide whether right or not to end his or her life. “Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that all persons have a moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they inflict no harm on others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one 's life when we choose” (A Right or a Wrong?). People have the right to die with dignity and in a humane way. If they feel like they have to do a certain thing, it is

Many people in the world are suffering from illness that cannot be cured. They live their last days in pain and suffering wondering when and why it happened to them. Instead of suffering, many people dream of suicide to take their pain away but they know no one would understand. In very few states, it is legal for people to get assistance to put them out of their pain and suffering. It is called assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is the help from a physician to end their patients’ lives with their permission. The patient must have a terminal illness with less than six months to live to qualify. Many people are against assisted suicide because they believe that it is just a cover for murder. People should be thought of as dying with dignity

   The basic dilemma surrounding the subject of assisted suicide is who has the right to choose when someone dies? There are many layers of questions and varying opinions surrounding this right. How can our own self-determination be considered morally wrong when taken in the context of the opinion of others? In a society that stresses individual freedoms why is it that Congress continues to hinder doctor-assisted suicide (Keminer, 2000, p. 8)?

Medical ethics and patient care go hand and hand. As health care providers, it is their duty to see that the patient 's needs are met. We are charged to insure comfort and proper recovery. The question here is whether there is a difference for patients who request voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. These patients have the same rights to quality care of their bodies as we all do. Although, the United States constitution ensures us the right to life, it doesn 't mean that the right to die is taken away. Five states currently allow physician assisted suicide. In each state there has been controversial and contentious debate as to whether states should follow the lead of states that have allowed PAS.

As United States citizens, we are guaranteed certain rights. One of these rights is the right to life. A human has a right to live, and a right to not be killed by another human being or themself. This right is established by our forefathers, who developed the Declaration of Independence around this principle. Physician assisted suicide clearly contradicts this right. James Thunder states, “The right at issue is the right of an individual to be treated and valued as a human being up to the moment of natural death, the right of the individual to not have her life denigrated to the point of her doctor, sworn to protect life, administering a lethal injection” (440). This shows that physician assisted suicide devalues life and the means to preserve it. “The Declaration of Independence recognizes that there is a right to life and that it is an inalienable one, meaning it is a right that a person can never give up. It is not a right depended on the largesse of the government or the people. It is not a right dependent on an individual’s mental competence or willingness to give it up. It is inalienable” (Thunder 441). Because the right to life is inalienable, it can not be taken away. Physician assisted suicide takes life, clearly denying the right to life. As physician assisted suicide contradicts the inalienable right to life, it is necessary that it be stopped

"You have stage IV lung cancer that has metastasized to your lymph nodes and bones. Your prognosis is poor; you may have another 18 months left [to live]." The oncologist’s words marked the beginning of my ex-husband’s physical and emotional suffering until his untimely death in January 2017. Witnessing his unrelenting pain and watching him suffer from lung cancer and the horrible side effects of chemotherapy, I wondered why the doctors did not offer him any other alternatives other than living in progressive pain. Why would they let him suffer for the next 18 months with ineffective pain management treatment when his prognosis was so poor? This option should have been available to him, but due to state laws and

Humans are given the right to life which states that “nobody should be arbitrarily deprived of their life.” Imagine being given your lifespan at birth, and a person that does not personally know you or your family told you how to spend those years. This is essentially what the government is doing by withholding and criminalizing patients of the resources with which to end their lives. If people have the right to life, that right should also include the right to control their quality of life; the right to life should not entail the life that has been chosen for the individual, but rather the life that the individual choses. Over 91 percent of patients said that losing autonomy was the reason that they chose physician assisted suicide, and 71 percent said that they wanted to die with dignity. The desire to increase autonomy among terminally ill individuals is one that is shared by Dr. Timothy Quill M.D., a palliative care specialist from the University of Rochester Medical Center: “Patients with serious illness wish to have control over their own bodies, their own lives, and concern about future physical and psychosocial distress. Some view potential access to physician-assisted death as the best option to address these concerns.” If we aim to promote freedom and autonomy of oneself, why then, should we deny people the right to choose when, and on what terms, they die? Supreme Court Justice William Brennan states that: "An ignoble end steeped in decay is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme

In 1776, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence, guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This brings up the question, if you have the right to life, do you have the right to death? After all, it is your life and no one else’s, right? This is the question at the very center of the controversial debate on the legalization of physician assisted suicide in the United States. Anti-physician assisted suicide groups often argue that no individual truly wants to end their life. However, that statement does not ring true to those who would actually utilize physician assisted suicide- terminally ill patients. Imagine being diagnosed with a terminal disease, followed by months and sometimes years of treatment that brings insufferable side effects due to countless medicines, drugs and surgeries only to be told that you have a minimal chance of survival and will have to undergo treatment for the rest of your life. This is the bleak reality for many who are terminally ill. A compassionate individual would conclude that it is not fair for patients to be forced to live this kind of life or lack thereof, if they do not wish to do so. Physician assisted suicide should be a legal option to competent, terminally ill patients in the United States in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital costs on their loved ones and families and to preserve the individual right of people to determine their

In the words of Faye Girsh, a respected mind on the issue from the Final Exit Network, “Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights — the right not to be forced to suffer” (Girsh). In response to this argument, it is important to keep in mind that laws have not been put in place to make people suffer, and that legalization of physician assisted suicide would actually lead to a greater increase in suffering by allowing people to take their own lives for the wrong reasons (primarily financial). As Rita Marker says, to claim assisted suicide laws are put in place to mandate suffering is “similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation” (Marker and

In an age where deadly diseases have become more well-known and prominent in society, many people, who have been affected by cancer or other infections, are trying to look for a way out from the tragic, life stealing ultimatum that has been forced upon them. As they wait for cures and antidotes to save them from their suffering, many have become aware of assisted suicide, a solution in which sick individuals are given medicine that can give them a quick end rather than the horrid, excruciating one they are destined to suffer through. While assisted suicide has become a means to an end, an opportunity to release the sick from the agony they will face, they may not be allowed to see it through. Throughout the United States, assisted suicide

Physician assisted suicide is requested by the terminally ill, typically when the pain from the illness is too much to handle and is not manageable through treatments or other medications. Assisted suicide is more of a broad term for helping someone die a good death, physician assisted suicide is where a medical doctor provides information and medication and the patient then administers the medications themselves. Euthanasia is also another term that is commonly heard, this refers to a medical doctor that voluntarily administers the lethal dose of medication to the patient when the patient requests it, due to not physically being able to do it themselves (Humphry, 2006). There pros and cons with this topic throughout the world, but is one of the biggest debated things here in the United States of America and to this day there are only five states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide (ProCon.org, 2015). The government should allow patients that are terminally ill the right to choose physician assisted suicide, why should they have to suffer when there is a way out.

“Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death.”