Euthanasia Controversy: To Die Or Right To Die?

Due to it’s uncomfortable and sad nature, the Death with Dignity act has become very controversial. With the U.S population nearly split evenly on this topic, with 47% of the population in support of it and 49% in opposition to it, there have been many pros and cons discussed for these acts (Lipka). Many supporting the Death with Dignity act believe it is the patient 's right to decide to die. Others opposing counter this with the fact that premature death is unnatural and immoral in their eyes. People also argue that the Death with Dignity act allows the patients have a more peaceful more controlled death giving them and their families more closure as they reach their end. Opposers believe that palliative care is the answer to a more peaceful end. Some in support believe that people

The right-to-die movement is spreading across the United States. Right-to-die refers to issues that involve the decisions of an individual to be allowed to die, when they could survive on life support or in a diminished state. This also allows for terminally ill people to refuse life support and/or die

One of the largest arguments made about physician assisted suicide is it is morally wrong. Supporters of the right-to-die movement, argue that just as courts have found that there is a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, there is a similar right to ask for medical assistance in dying. When patients reach a point where illness, pain, suffering, and lack of freedom have essentially destroyed their quality of life, supporters contend, they should have the ability to end their lives legally and in a dignified manner. The government, supporters argue, has no right to interfere in this choice (" The Right to Die" ). Assisted suicide proponents argue that it is like abortion, it is a choice issue because doctors have enough knowledge to know when a patient is close to dying. Accredited

There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states

The Right to Decide Ones Fate Death is not a topic that many people are comfortable with, some people believe it is outrageous for others to play God and decide when to end their lives. While this is true for people with normal pains, there are those who feel they have the right to choose their own fate because they cannot bear their pain and suffering anymore. These are people that are terminally ill, people who were diagnosed with a deadly disease without a cure and feel that death is the only way to relieve that pain. These people has gone through many treatments that are slowly becoming less and less effective. Even though the treatment isn’t working, the patients still have to live through the pain from the treatments. Terminally ill

The right to die argument is one that has been used to pass laws in five state in the United State, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico, and Montana. These “Right to die laws” legalized assisted suicide in cases of terminally ill patients which is defined as “the status of a person expected to die within six months from a specific condition, and thus may need hospice care.”(cite) The right to die argument argues that there is a constitutional right to refuse treatment and care. In a 1996 supreme court case in Washington the argument that “the right of a mentally competent, terminally ill person to choose an end to suffering by hastening an inevitable death is deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” was made to support an assisted suicide bill. (cite) Many times when there is no cure and treatment is no longer working terminally ill patients will move to one of the five states where physician assisted suicide is legal and find a new physician who will aid them in ending their live when and how they want. One example of this is Britany Maynard, a twenty-nine year old with an aggressive brain cancer who has moved to Oregon and found a physician to help her to “die with dignity and on my own terms.”(cite) This argument is not accepted by everyone in the end of life community, the con side counters this argument by saying that there's a difference between allowing someone to refuse treatment and end their life with a natural death and contributing to or aiding a patient in ending their life. Many terminally ill patients refuse treatment and live out their lives in minimal pain and surrounded by loved ones. One example of a patient that refused treatment but did not consider physician assisted suicide is Maggie Karner. Karner also has an aggressive form of brain cancers, she wrote in her personal narative on thefederalist.com that she “I

There is much controversy in many medical choices that one can make. The controversy can be distinguished by religious boundaries, whether the choice or decision is moral or ethical, if the choice contradicts the Hippocratic Oath, or it could be any combination of the mentioned. One topic that holds all

The right to die with dignity should be every person’s legal right in times when medical treatment does nothing but pro-long an individual’s suffering and ultimately fail to save their lives. There are many moral and ethical reasons why physician assisted suicide should be legalized however, there is also opposition to euthanasia.

Furthermore, the right to die, according to the book, Euthanasia, by Linda Jackson, is considered a basic human right. Medical professionals have claimed to have had their patients not wish to undergo the heaviness of sedation. Today, relationships between doctors and their patients have appeared to be more equal, instead of just relying on the doctor, when it comes to making decisions about the patient’s health (Jackson 30). Given these points, allowing euthanasia to terminally ill patients would give them the chance to choose to end their distress, which therefore allows the right to die and the right to decide which type of treatment the patient would receive.

Currently only five out of fifty states in America have legalized the Right to Die Statue. The Right to Die Statue is also known as Physician assisted suicide which allows an individual the right to end life in an humane and dignified way. Patients must be deemed terminally ill by an attending and consulting physician to be administered a lethal medication to end their life. The Right to Die movement is fighting to advocate for the dignity and comfort of millions of suffering patients in the United States. The Right to Die Statue must be legalized because every individual deserves the basic human freedom of an dignified death.

The “right-to-die” has been controversial for a long time and is continuously in debate. Some of the arguments in favor of laws allowing individuals to choose include - Anyone coming into hospital in an emergency has the option of a DNR (do not resuscitate). People who go into comas may leave living wills instructing doctors not to use any extreme life-saving measures (this includes feeding tubes). Perhaps dying with dignity is controversial b/c it seems like a more conscious choice. People can predetermine that they don’t want to live life as vegetables…but the general public has a hard time reconciling people who are still walking and talking making decisions to die. Why? Because they look healthy? Because they ‘appear’ to have life left in them? That is exactly what is being contested.

Euthanasia for the Elderly in the United States Hannah Pate An issue facing much of today’s elderly and terminally ill populations is that of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Several countries, most notably the Netherlands, has legalized euthanasia and physician assisted suicide leading to what is now referred to as “death tourism”.

Should people with terminal illness have the right to doctor assisted suicides . The Right to assisted suicide is a major topic worldwide. Different people have different feeling toward the matter in fact it boils down to say that the patients have the right to die with assistance of a doctor, this is said because of aspects such as a person’s values, morals and general ethics (Esther B. De La Torre).

The main argument in support of Physician assisted Suicide is that every competent individual has the right to decide on the manner in which to live life. That autonomy should also be extended to persons suffering from terminal conditions and therefore should control the timing and the manner of death they wish to face (Hawkins, 2002). Every person has the option to live quality life and avert any suffering and pain and be allowed to do in a dignified manner. Thus terminally ill patient should allowed to die in dignity without the need to face any anguish and that this autonomy must not be taken away from them.

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and