Assisted Suicide Should Not Be Legalized Essay

It is said that helping somebody who wants to die in a peaceful, painless way should be legal. Choosing how we die is a basic human freedom and if an individual's quality of life is deteriorating, due to a terminal disease such as cancer, they should have the right to stop their suffering via physician assisted suicide. It might be the case that the drugs for assisted suicide are far less expensive than the cost of their current medical care. This allows the government to save money as well as the lift the financial burden from the family of patients who are suffering from serious illness. Some people say that physician assisted suicide decreases the value of human life, but this isn't the case as it actually helps those who are terminal retain their dignity and choose their own death.

Every day in the United States 1,500 people are diagnosed with a terminal illness. These people are given few options when determining if the wish to try treatment and if treatment does not work, how to deal with the end of their lives. (author unknown, “Cancer”) With this horrible future ahead of them many may wish to make amends before it’s too late, however, an increasing number of people are seeking an alternate solution. In states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and soon California a relatively new, legal option is available for people with terminal illnesses. The states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana created a law which allows people with a terminal illness and less than six months that are mentally healthy seek professional medical help that will end their lives (Humphrey, Derek) . This topic has created heated debates across the United States with each side have clear and defined reason as to why or why not this controversial law should be processed for the whole country. The people who defend the law believe that people who are losing their lives should be able to leave this world on their own terms, and with the help of physicians they can go in a painless and mess-free way. Supporters also believe that by not wanting to the end it can help save patients, doctors, and insurance time and money that could be better spent on patients who may have options and may not be able to reach them without

There are arguments for both sides of the issue. There is fear that the terminally ill would be taken advantage of. If it is closely regulated this should never be an issue. If the state of Florida passes the initiative for Physician-assisted suicide, tremendous pain and suffering could be avoided in many cases. A patient, who has long been denied a death with dignity, would finally have recourse of action to end his or her painful life. Nurses and doctors are certainly more qualified to recommend a painless procedure, than the patient is themselves. If agreed upon by the patient, vital organs could be harvested and used for others before a disease like cancer ravishes them through time. Not only would the patient’s suffering end, but the tortured families of such patients would finally be given the chance for closure and begin to move ahead with their own lives once again. (Messerli)

The thoughts of assisted suicide are very mixed. Some people believe that it is a great way to put terminally-ill patients out of the their pain and suffering. They see it as a way for a person to die with dignity after suffering from a painful disease. Others think it is beyond morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally end a patient’s life. They feel that a doctor should not have unnecessary deaths riding, on their shoulders the rest of their career. Assisted suicide goes way beyond the beliefs of medicine and is morally wrong in so many ways.

prescribe drugs to terminally ill patients who request to end their lives. Attorney General John

Support for the participation of physicians in the suicides of terminally ill patients is increasing. Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide however focuses on the debate over whether the practice should be legalized. A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law of physician-assisted suicide in March of 1998. In 1994, voters in Oregon approved a referendum called the Death with Dignity Act, which was enacted in 1997. This law allows patients who have been given six months or less to live that wish to hasten their deaths to obtain lethal doses of medication prescribed by two doctors. Between 1998 and 2000, ninety-six lethal prescriptions were written, and seventy patients took the

You’re visiting the hospice for the twenty-third day in a row; the soft squeaking of the linoleum and the gentle buzz of the fluorescents in the waiting room greet you as you walk in. You’re visiting your Grandmother, whose lung cancer has entered metastasis, and has been slowly spreading throughout her body; she has already lost movement in her arms. She is a hollow shell of the woman she once was; her once bright eyes have been fading steadily every day, and her bubbly demeanor has become crushed and gravelly, and every day before you leave, she will only say, “Kill me.” What would you do in this situation? Would you break the law in order to respect your elder’s wishes? It is a cruel reality we live in when ability to choose the time

The process of assisted suicide, or physician-assisted death, is a hotly debated topic that still remains at the forefront of many national discussions today. Assisted suicide can be described as the suicide of patient by a physician-prescribed dose of legal drugs. The reason that this topic is so widely debated is that it infringes on several moral and religious values that many people in the United States have. But, regardless of the way that people feel, a person’s right to live is guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution, and this should extend to the right to end their own life as well. The reasons that assisted suicide should be legalized in all states is because it can ease not only the suffering of the individual, but the financial burden on the family that is supporting him/her. Regardless of opposing claims, assisted suicide should be an option for all terminally ill patients.

Assisted suicide brings a debate that involves professional, legal and ethical issues about the value of the liberty versus the value of life. However, before conceive an opinion about this topic is necessary know deeply its concept. Assisted suicide is known as the act of ending with the life of a terminal illness patients for end with their insupportable pain. Unlike euthanasia, the decision is not made by the doctor and their families, but by the patient. Therefore, doctors should be able to assist the suicide of their patients without being accused of committing a criminal offense. This conception is supported by three points of view. The first point defenses the autonomy of people, which covers the right of people to make decision

This risk should not be taken. Eventually others, like those with mental illness, could seek this treatment as well (Smith). They wouldn’t have the right to decide if they want to go through with euthanasia, so maybe their relative, who is tired of paying for treatment, could petition for euthanasia. If the state has custody they could also pursue the cheapest option. The physician’s ruthlessness could kill many people everywhere. If this is a possibility so much of the hope could disappear. Death is essentially giving up. “Murder and Suicide are both forms of killing,” States M. Scott Peck. Physician assisted suicide could lead to an even worse law.

Euthanasia is a word that comes from ancient Greece and it refers to “good death”. In the modern societies euthanasia is defined as taking away people’s lives who suffer from an incurable disease. They usually go through this process by painlessness ways to avoid the greatest pains that occurs from the disease. A huge number of countries in the World are against euthanasia and any specific type of it. One of the most important things being discussed nowadays is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. This essay will focus on comparing positive and negative aspects of euthanasia in order to answer to the question whether euthanasia should be legal or not.

Assisted Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. There are many ethical dilemmas surrounding assisted suicide. Although there is no way to truly say whether assisted suicide is a good or bad thing. I can say that it would be ethically wrong to legalize it. How, it can open the floodgates for anyone to medically end their life, we are not meant to “pay God”, and it can jeopardize the ethical and moral duties of healthcare professionals. When someone thinks of the word “suicide” most think of a person killing him or herself to escape their problems, except assisted suicide isn’t quite the same. According to Batten “Assisted suicide is the means by which an individual choose to end his or her life via the help of another person, who may offer medical assistance” (Batten 398). Death isn’t something a health care professional should be allowed to assist with but rather guide the patient back to a healthier state.

     Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, assisted suicide is not a right, and it remains illegal in most states. Oregon, Washington and Montana do permit it, however, and even though their laws in the courts for many years, in the end the Supreme Court did not forbid the states from passing such laws altogether. Many states already allow patients to refuse treatment in these situations, to die without having to endure extraordinary lifesaving measures, and to withhold food and water from comatose and brain dead patients. State courts have also ruled that parents cannot collect damages for the birth of a normal, healthy child, even as the result of medical malpractice through defective sterilization and contraception procedures or failure to carry out correct genetic testing or fully inform parents of the results. Nor have the courts ruled that the birth of a handicapped child is a life unworthy of living, and instead have argued for judicial restraint in making such legal and moral determinations. Even in the case of the severely handicapped, such as children with Down syndrome, American courts have not ruled that nonexistence would be preferable to living a limited life. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that parents can collect personal injury damages as the result the birth of an impaired or unplanned child, at least in the recovery of medical costs if not all the expenses of rearing the child to adulthood. A related issue is that the U.S.

“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.”