Euthanasia Essay: The Legality Of Assisted Suicide

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).

Sylvia Law, a published author in the University of Maryland Law Review, in her essay, “Physician-Assisted Death: An Essay on Constitutional Rights and Remedies,” addresses the issues in constitutional law surrounding the controversy of a person’s right to die. In the three parts to her essay, Law contends and considers whether “statutes that criminalize medically assisted suicides violate the liberty and privacy rights of terminally ill” and whether “assisted suicide should be considered a constitutionally protected right and also the ways in which these issues come before the courts”. Her purpose is to analyze and inform on the laws and challenges relating to this issue in order to make readers aware of the problems that are created by the

   The basic dilemma surrounding the subject of assisted suicide is who has the right to choose when someone dies? There are many layers of questions and varying opinions surrounding this right. How can our own self-determination be considered morally wrong when taken in the context of the opinion of others? In a society that stresses individual freedoms why is it that Congress continues to hinder doctor-assisted suicide (Keminer, 2000, p. 8)?

The main objective of this chapter is to highlight the predominant arguments in favour and against assisted dying. The analysis of these arguments and the provision of an extensive list of safeguards that would be included with the legalisation of assisted dying support the overarching argument that a liberal society must uphold the right to individual autonomy. And therefore, as long as strict safeguards are in place must allow suffering individuals the choice to end their

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

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

These laws are deeply rooted. In recent years, however, these assisted suicide bans have been reexamined and, reacknowledged. Because of advances in medicine and technology, people today are more likely to die in hospitals from chronic illnesses. Public concern and democratic action are focused on how best to protect dignity and honor at the end of life, there have been many significant changes in state laws and in the attitudes these laws reflect. Many states, for example, now permit "living wills, surrogate health care decision making, and the withdrawal or refusal of life sustaining medical treatment.” voters and legislators continue for the most part to backup their states' prohibitions on assisting suicide.

A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide as applied to terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained. The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships,

In our society today, many terminally ill struggle with pain and fight through their disease. No methods have been discovered to cure these poor people. Everyday, he or she wish for relief on their significant unrelenting pain, but the only method right now is to end their lives. There are two methods that many terminally ill look to that are familiarized by our society, physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is when the patient is prescribed lethal medicine by the doctor to commit suicide. While, voluntary active euthanasia is when a physician takes an active role in the action of killing the patient. There is often debate on whether or not any of these actions should be legalized in all states. Physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, California, Montana, Vermont, and Washington. Voluntary active euthanasia is illegal throughout the country. In my opinion, I believe that both voluntary active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legal in every state.

     A Saskatchewan farmer, Robert Latimer, was sentenced to life in prison last year for the 1993 second-degree murder of his severely disabled daughter, Tracy. He asphyxiated her with exhaust from his pick-up (Heinrich).

Legalizing assisted suicide would abuse the intended use of life saving treatments, and would go against the real reason of life. Some people believe mental illness is something that can’t be cured, and should be an “illness” that is eligible for assisted suicide. But they don’t realize mental illness can be cured, or at least helped though medication or therapy. In an investigation led by Dr. Scott Y.H Kim, a psychiatrist and botchiest at the National Institutes of Health, it was confirmed “That in more than half of approved cases, people declined treatment that could have helped” (Carey). This piece of information really moves me. It tells me many people just feel like giving up because the person believes it is impossible to heal, when honestly; it is because

     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.

     Once having a mere glimpse into the lives of the terminally ill or disabled, some are able to understand their plight; but usually most are not. In most cases, these people are able to take what they've been given and deal with it. However, in some cases, some simply can not tolerate their lives as they are. They feel that the only solution to their problem is to end their lives. Unfortunately, in some cases, the terminally ill or disabled are not capable of accomplishing this task by themselves, and are left trapped in a life that they do not want. In these cases, when one wishes to end his life and is terminally ill, disabled, or otherwise unable to do so independently, he should have the right to die by assisted suicide. Although most people that are terminally ill or disabled do not wish to end their lives, there are still those few who do. While examining the issue of assisted suicide, three facets of the controversy must be considered: the political, the moral, and the human or compassionate views. By supporting their decision, we support their right to choose and decide what they want to do with their bodies and their lives, we do not

After the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to the assisted suicide movement, time stopped for the activists. In a unanimous decision, the nine justices upheld the right of each and every state to protect its residents. Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court,