Death Is A Bit Taboo

Imagine laying in a hospital bed living everyday in extreme pain with no hope of getting better. This scenario explains what many people go through everyday, which is a living with a terminal illness. M. Lee, a science historian, and Alexander Stingl a sociologist, define terminal illness as “an illness from which the patient is not expected to recover even with treatment. As the illness progresses death is inevitable” (1). There are not many options for the terminally ill besides dying a slow and painful death, but assisted suicide could be best option for these patients. Assisted suicide is “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication” (Lee and Stingl 1). Some feel that assisted suicide is unnecessary because it is too great of a controversy and will only cause problems in society. However, assisted suicide should be legal in the United States as long as there are strict regulations to accompany it.

In homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered—should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely

Many people throughout the world are diagnosed with a terminally ill disease, meaning their disease is not curable and they are given a short period to live. Take Brittany Maynard for example. She was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of 29 and had two surgeries to prevent the tumor from growing. Months later she found out her tumor came back, was more aggressive, and she was given six months to live. Doctors suggested another surgery, but after reading the side effects, Brittany decided not to do it. She considered staying at her home in San Francisco under hospice care. With not wanting her family to watch her suffer, she looked into the Death with Dignity Act. This act is adopted in only five states and gives patients who are terminally ill the right to die with the use of a prescribed drug from a doctor. Here in Wisconsin, there is no Death with Dignity Law. According to John Stuart Mill, author of “On Liberty”, this assisted suicide act should be legal in all states. In his work, he talks about his own principles. Certain principles that tie into assisted suicide are direct and indirect harm followed by informed consent. In “On Liberty” Mill’s principles say assisted suicide should be legal in all states since it only causes direct harm to the person taking the pill and indirect harm to loved ones.

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

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

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.

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

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

Assistive suicide, also known as euthanasia, “is suicide committed by someone with assistance from others, typically to end suffering from a severe physical illness” (American Heritage Dictionary, 615). This action is most commonly committed between doctor and patient interactions. This controversial issue depicts suicides as a helpful solution to personally benefit terminally ill patients, as opposed to a forbidden social issue. Assistive suicide has become a major debate of legalization. “This is an act of a physician prescribing a drug to a patient which drug the patient is able to take on his or her own without the assistance of a medical provider or another person. This drug generally results in unconsciousness within five minutes and death within thirty” (Levin, May 08, 2002). My concern with this matter has reached high limits. Due to the fact that is still illegal in certain states many patients aren’t able to relieve their pain or suffering. Assistive suicide is meant as a solution to end personal suffering, its not to involve the public’s opinion or decisions. This should be a personal choice. Assistive suicide should be an elective choice for anyone and everyone facing terminal illness. Not enabling assisted suicide violates human rights and infringes inalienable rights.

As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations,

Medical technology is far more advanced today then years of past. With the new and rapid expansions in knowledge and drug pharmacology the power of life and death lays in closer proximity than ever. With this comes the medical means to treat and diminish the anguish of people afflicted with sicknesses that were once incurable or agonizing. However, we are also in a time where medical technology has given us the power to sustain lives or prolong the death of patients whose physical and mental capabilities that cannot be restored. Patients, whose deteriorating conditions that cannot be overturned or even treated now have to suffer in pain that cannot be eliminated, only controlled. As medical professional fight to yank

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

There are many reasons of why we should legalize assisted suicide. It should use as a lawful medical procedure for terminally ill adults, because it is a compassionate response to relieve the suffering that the dying patients are going through. We sometimes forget that death can also mean the end of suffering and can help get rid of that pain these patients go through every day in their lives, waiting to die. This is for the people who don’t have that much time to live and can’t endure their suffering anymore, they should have the right to die quickly and painlessly. If people have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, then why don’t we have the freedom to choose to end their lives instead? A dying person’s physical suffering can be the