Dr Leigh's Argument Against Euthanasia

Humans should not be forced to live against their will when they are suffering from an incurable illness that will lead to an undignified or painful death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a person is close to the end with no hope for a cure. It should be their legal right to choose to end their life in a humane way, instead of waiting for death knowing that it’s not going to be peaceful. It’s common practice to put an animal down to end its suffering, yet that same kindness is being denied to human beings who would choose it for themselves.

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

According to Simon Jenkins, a writer for the British newspaper The Guardian, states that “there cannot be a human freedom so personal as ordering the circumstances of one's own death...[yet]... the near universal desire ‘to be allowed to die in my own home’ is willfully disregarded” (Jenkins 1). By allowing yourself to have life, one would assume that this gives you freedom over other aspects of your existence, including when it should end. By denying the rights to achieve liberty, achieve happiness, and define our lives, are we not denying the rights governments around the world were founded on? It is the denial of these rights that allows the mental stress felt by patients to turn into physical pain.

In an article describing the end of patient’s lives and what physician-assisted suicide would mean to patients, the writers stated that “[p]atients nearing the end of life want control over their bodies and their lives as a ‘small measure of self preservation,’ they noted” (Alexi, Block Wright). The knowledge that you hold and control your life and everything it stands for in the palm of your hands is a goal that everyone seeks in some point in their lives. For instance, many consider control over one’s death a sign of self-fulfillment and the ultimate happiness. Physician-assisted suicide would give terminally ill patients, people whose bodies are giving out on them, a chance to reach contentment and peace. Furthermore, the lethal dose that ends the patient’s life symbolizes the start of a happier era in which their troubles end with them. Also, the ability to pursue happiness as long as it is not impeding on anyone else’s life is a right that comes with citizenship in the U.S. Another article that illustrates the right to physician-assisted suicide states that “[as] medical science progresses and new methods become available for keeping people alive longer, a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment should be protected” (DiLascio, Pawlick). DiLascio and Pawlick are stating that patients should have the right to physician-assisted

In the United States, we have certain human rights and that includes the right to choose to end our lives. Under article 3 in the Declaration of Human Rights, it states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person” (Appendix). Given this law, a patient has all the rights to decide if they want to live or die. According to Dworkin, “The individual has a basic right to determine the course of their own life and obviously death is a part of that course” (Bell). A fellow New Yorker also said, “Whatever view we take about, we want the right to decide for ourselves.” To sum up, it’s very important to allow us to make our own decisions.

What is it like to live in the shoes of a terminally ill person? A sparse amount of people can relate. We often see terminally ill people as people who endure great amounts of pain, suffering from their burden of a condition. When it comes to death, doctors and the medical staff often try to keep the terminal condition at bay. When is it that a terminally ill patient is allowed to say, “I am ready to let go and be free of my painful state”? The ban on assisted suicide is a hindrance to the right of Terminally Ill to end their pain and suffering.

The choice to die lies in the hands of the terminally ill, because it is, after all, their life and body. Michael Irwin, MPH, MD, former Medical Director at the United Nations and current Coordinator of the Society for Old Age Rational Suicide (SOARS) says "The right to die should be a matter of personal choice. We are able to choose all kinds of things in life from who we marry to what kind of work we do and I think when one comes to the end of one's life, whether you have a terminal illness or whether you're elderly, you should have a choice about what happens to you... ". People have choices when it comes to their own babies and dogs, why not their very own lives? If a dog is diagnosed with cancer that cannot be cured and is in pain and suffering, the owner of that dog has the right to decide whether to “put it down” or not. If a person is terminally ill, and as the owner of their own life, shouldn’t they have the right to choose to be “put down” as well? It isn’t right that they have the right to decide the lives of living things other than themselves yet the decision deciding the fate of their own lives is supposedly inhumane.

About a century ago, when new technologies such as the artificial respirator and morphine spiked, the right to die law came up. The right to die law gives terminally ill patients the ability to end their life. Today, in the United States only five states have passed the right to die law. All terminally ill patients, should have the option open to them in all fifty states. With the right to die law comes a variety of opinions, along with uprising questions, and stories of people who did or should have been able to chose their death.

The world revolves around the perception that a healthy life is guaranteed until it is abruptly interfered with a life tragedy or sickness. When terminally ill, an individual encounters a disease that cannot be cured and is reasonably expected to die. This particular term is used with a variation of illnesses, affecting a multitude of the nation's population. From cancerous tumors to prolonged comas, lives are tragically affected. Living with painful, endless symptoms can lead to patients suffering for an immeasurable time. A common request among these patients are to be assisted in suicide, or euthanasia. There are many reasons towards the intentions of dying, but it continues to bring controversy throughout the world. When fitted to reasonable

Today our team will be speaking on the topic “Should euthanasia be legalized in Australia?”. As the first affirmative speaker, I will be introducing the topic of Euthanasia. I will discuss the differences between palliative care and assisted dying, a patient’s right to die, and also highlight patient suffering.

Terminally ill people should have the right to take their own life in order to end their excruciating suffering and pain. Every person should have the right to a dignified and compassionate death, and giving this right to a terminally ill person would give that individual the feeling of a respectful and noble death. When a person’s health has reached the level of terminally ill and there is no quality of life, the purpose of life is meaningless; in fact it can be darn right mean. Seeing a loved one suffering in unbearable pain is not only dreadful for the terminally ill person to endure, but it is just as horrible if not more horrendous for family members to watch their loved ones go through this misery. The outcome to a terminally ill

Recent developments in medicine have raised concern for a particular problem that has been a major debate in medical history: the issue of how to treat those who have determined their lives have no likelihood for progression and are no longer worth living. There is a right to die, because human beings have the fundamental and explicit right to choose. Four particular concepts justify how having a right to “live” also implies that there is a right to “death”: individual, competent self-determination, moral incongruity between killing and “letting die”, and the presumed lack of proof to show probable unsafe consequences of legalized euthanasia. Dying is one of the most important parts in human life, therefore the right to die and the right to

We believe that patients should not be denied access to a death with dignity. The right to die should be respected just as much as the right to live. It is within an adult’s right to deny any treatment that can prolong their life when death is unbearable and/or near. State legislations established end-of-life legislations to help diminish the dilemma between legal and ethical stances on dying with dignity. There are specific requirements that a patient must meet before they are allowed access to euthanasia or a death with dignity.

Yet when it comes to incurable and deleterious illnesses such as Alzheimer’s disease, are they, the hospital staff going to be able to alleviate the patient’s pain? Right to Die advocated believes that those who lack that particular,” quality of life” should be able to make their own decisions. As shown in the change of the Hippocratic Oath, modern day American Citizens are beginning to change their view on euthanasia. As the future and new generations of American citizens are constantly changing from how they were in the past, it is believed that euthanasia will be one of the many ideas that may be accepted and perhaps, even legalized to many different countries in the world. As Terry Pratchett - the author of “Euthanasia Is Merciful and Reasonable,” says, “If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice” (Pratchett 5).Modern times are now placing more importance on individual wellness and self-made decisions that are not influenced by outside beliefs, due to the embrace of different religions and a diverse range of moral and ethical beliefs. This is important because that means pro-choice is becoming more embraced by the new generation. In today’s modern society, I believe that it is unethical to forbid those who are suffering from relieving their pain as they wish. Without euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, terminally ill patients who are under great distress, are unable to live as they please, and are causing their beloved family an abundant amount of debt. Out of pure compassion and empathy, I believe it is best to legalize euthanasia for those who truly cannot live a better

a person with a terminal illness’s pain can be managed to a tolerable level should they