Arguments Of Suicide

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

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

In 1994, Oregon became the first state to pass a bill legalizing physician aid-in-dying (Richardson, 2011). This law would allow a terminally ill patient with 6 months or less to live to end their life by their own terms (“It’s Not Assisted Suicide”, 2011). This bill leads to the question “Why would a form of purposeful death be legalized?” The bill, itself was passed for many reasons including the fact that the patients want to have control over their life and ultimately their death (“It’s Not Assisted Suicide”, 2011). They also do not want to live in fear of what will eventually happen to them. “Death with Dignity” was passed is because many terminally-ill patients do not want to live in excruciating pain and in fear of what will happen to them, living a prolonged life or taking control over one’s death is a personal choice belonging only to the individual making it.

On New Year’s day in 2014, 29-year-old newly wed and hopeful mother , Brittany Maynard, was diagnosed with a malignant stage four brain tumor and was given six months to live. After two failed surgeries and full brain radiation, Maynard made the decision to die on her own terms. She and her family moved to Oregon and established residency so that she could utilize Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act. Maynard chose to end her life on November 1, 2014. Before her death, Maynard asked her friends and family: “Who has the right to tell me that I don't deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?” This same question

Too feeble to stand up himself, a grown man sits in the arms of hospice care day in and day out, just waiting to be picked up out of bed, given a little relief. All that crosses his mind is the thought of death. This man suffers through the pain of his condition everyday, until he sluggishly deteriorates. His body hangs on longer than his mind, until he dies exactly the opposite of how he wanted to, not of a sound mind. Death with Dignity states that 70% of people in the U.S. have joined the fight to legalize a practice in which people can chose to die at the end of their life in specific conditions. Voluntary assisted suicide should be legalized in Wisconsin because there are strict laws that will make sure that this process is done correctly,

deaths every day. Within these 153,000 deaths, about 90% of them are terminally ill patients

On the morning of April 20th, 2017, nearly a year ago as of the writing of this paper, Charlie and Francie Emerick held hands for one last time. After months of preparation, both physically and mentally, the couple was ready. They were about to commit assisted suicide (Aleccia). While many argue against the ideals of assisted suicide, which is the act of, with the help of a physician, ending your life, I believe that, under the proper legislation, it is an acceptable form of death. While some people may argue that death should be natural, doctors won’t do it, and that it’s a cry for help, it’s obvious that this is a considerable alternative which is a genuine option to the end of life.

The cultural and ethical viewpoint is really a moot point when considering assisted suicide. While it can be agreed by both supporters and proponents that life is valuable and precious, it could be said that everyone has the right to assess the value themselves and consider the quality versus quantity of life. Some people might say that without quality, why does quantity matter? Religious viewpoints overall are equally personal. One could argue most religions see that life should not be tampered with and left to a higher power or their God who is considered the giver of life. This argument can be invalid because in order to consider a religious viewpoint, one must first consider the religion itself to be built on personal faith. If someone

In my point of view Linda has shown fully autonomous and competent foresight with her assisted suicide plans because, she was able to exercise sound judgement about how she wants her last day to be like. Moreover, I think she died with dignity because overall her death wishes were granted while alerted and comforted by close family members and friends and not letting her die in agony or spend her final days in a drug-induced haze which qualifies Kass’s “right to die.” Furthermore, the kind of euthanasia for her PAS would be euthanasia suicide because the patient self-injected herself with a lethal dose which according to Gert affirmed voluntary active euthanasia. Although the physician acted in the best interest of the patient by ending her

Laura is arguing that patient assisted suicide (PAS) should be legal for every individual to use as an end of life decision when they have a terminal disease. She argues that PAS is a way for a terminally ill patient to pass away on their own terms with dignity and control.

Support for physician-assisted suicide started to gain popularity growing from 37 percent in 1947 to 53 percent by the early '70s with the rise of the patients' rights movement (Drum). On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act. This act allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. Though support for assisted suicide was high very few people were actually taking part in it “By 2014, after 16 years in which Oregonians could get used to the idea, 155 people requested prescriptions, and 105 used them. That's 105 out of about 34,000 total deaths statewide, or roughly one-third of 1 percent” (Drum). Though assisted suicide has been made legal in

Many of these previous arguments are valid. There is little I can say against the doctor having control over death by having the ability to save and the ability to kill. They’re many “correct” ways to look at this idea. A completely viable way to look at it is that he becomes a master of death by controlling death and life with patients which is a power most would say only belongs to god and if not god, it belongs to no one. Another way to look at it is through the patient's perspective. I touched on this right at the beginning of this argument but when someone fears tomorrow more than death itself, the doctor is no longer a killer. The doctor stops hearts from beating but he isn’t a killer. The doctor is supposed to do everything in his power

The debate for assisted suicide has been around for centuries. In more modern times, when one thinks of assisted suicide, their first thoughts may revert to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, infamously known as “Dr. Death”. He proposed several ideologies when it came to the topic of death including that voluntary euthanasia should not be a crime as a person should have rights over their own life (Grant, 2017). Those that proposed Kevorkian argued that helping someone take their life should be rendered a crime on the same level as murder as it is taking a life. In the article, “Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life” by Richard Doerflinger (1989), the author discusses the opposing views of this critical debate and how it relates to terminal patients and others who wish to have an absolute decision over their own lives. This article, although written almost 30 years ago, examines most of the attitudes that still hold firm for many debaters to this day.

Everyone will eventually die. Some people are living their lives sick, and hoping to die because they can’t stand the pain of living. But, choosing to die peacefully is an option with Assisted Suicide. For instance, most patients want to end their life peacefully, and with the choice of Assisted Suicide they can. Many patients who are ill want to die peacefully, so if they have the choice they could choose Assisted Suicide. Assisted Suicide is when people are severely sick and want to die in a calm matter, so physicians assist them with prescribing them a certain drug to end their life. People have diverse opinions on Assisted Suicide and if it should be legalized or not. Numerous people view this as “murder” and don’t want it, but others don’t.

The more a question is argued the better that question becomes it is often said. That question begins to grow and the side effect of this is the more people it reaches. Whether that question can be put into a category of right or wrong it begs to be answered. Knowledge is something that people instinctively need to function when faced with a problem, an answer must be found or it begins to form eminent possibility in any direction. The problem is a question that no one can truly answer for anyone other than the person faced with it, which is one's own self. The arguments from either side of this philosophical problem must not be centered around one's own belief but all that share the dilemma, which is in fact every human being.