Having the Right to Die

The appellant of the Cruzan v. Missouri case was the parents of Nancy Cruzan, Joe Cruzan and Joyce Cruzan. The Cruzans argued that when they made the decision to hook Nancy up to a feeding and hydration tube they were unaware that Nancy would be in the vegetative state permanently, they thought she would make it (Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1503).

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 with dignity (Right to Die, n.d.). With this movement has come many legal issues. In 1976, the US court system dealt with its first case of right-to-die decisions with in re Quinlan (How the ‘Right to Die’ Came to America, n.d.). There have since been a few stand out cases, like Terri Schiavo and Brittany Maynard, that have helped to pave the way for others who would like to exercise death with dignity. Some cases have also been argued as violations

The Cruzan verses Director, Missouri Department of Health was a United States Supreme Court case involving a young adult, Nancy Cruzan that was deemed incompetent. The case caught widespread attention as it was the first case ever heard by the court that discussed how and when families could decide to withdraw nourishment or medical treatment in order to bring about the death of an incompetent family member. (Wold, Judith & Demi, 1991). For 8 years, Nancy Cruzan had been in a vegetative state showing no sign of improvement. After being in the hospital for over a month, Cruzan’s family went to the courts to request the artificial feeding and hydration be terminated so that their daughter could die a dignified

The right to die has been brought to the media and public spotlight through the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan, Cruzan v. Missouri, and Vacco v. Quill. This issue has been the topic of heated debate for years in the religious, scientific, and political community. This is because this topic ties into many communities and effects a large amount of people.

Physician assisted suicide, or the so-called right-to-die, is a highly controversial issue that has appeared before many state and federal legislators but, has failed to pass in many states due to the huge opposition from groups such as the Catholic Church and disabled-rights organizations. However, physician assisted suicide is when a life ending medication is prescribed by a doctor for the patient, most commonly with a terminal illness, to take on their own. This medication merely accelerates the rate at which the person dies; therefore, it can not be considered suicide because they are only accelerating the rate at which the patient dies (Drum 29-31). In order for a patient to qualify

People have the freedom to make choices in life. However, the question posed is, do we have the freedom to choose death? Some say absolutely; we should have the freedom to decide how we spend our last days. If they’re filled with pain, debilitating, and cause hardship on loved ones, we should have the option to cease existence. Others take the view, we didn’t choose our birth, and therefore our death isn’t ours to choose. This causes debate on moral, ethical and legal grounds. This has led to defining the process under two separate terms for legal purposes. They are: euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide. Internationally, assisted suicide is a doctor prescribing drugs that end life. The patient is responsible for taking them. Euthanasia is the medication administered by doctors. Today, four countries have laws that allow euthanasia. (Ellis and Bronwyn) A few have laws for physician assisted suicide, and several countries have no laws against suicide. (Humphry) The United States of America have recently added a 5th state to offer assisted suicide. (California End of Life Option Act)

In the United States, we argue over what rights we have as living people. We even argue over what defines “life,” and when the rights we do have are established. Contrary to that, there are only 3 states in this nation that support the exact opposite of that—Aid in Dying (AID). Also known as Physician-Assisted Suicide, it is one of the most controversial and most debated subjects in the country. It is a topic that needs more discussion, and it also needs more support. In the 3 states that have passed this legislation—Oregon, Washington, and Vermont—they require a patient to be both terminally ill, meaning having a prognosis of less than six months to live, and to be mentally capable of making such a decision. We have various laws surrounding our right to life. For example, we know that the law prohibits homicide. However, what about our right to die with dignity? There are so many arguments opposing Physician-Assisted Suicide that they seem to overshadow the arguments for it. As a society, we need to come together and set aside our personal beliefs in order to understand and embrace this alternative.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and served an eight year prison sentence. (Fridstein. 1). This accomplished physician graduated from the University of Michigan with an impressively high IQ. He was a writer, inventor, movie producer and classical composer. (Kevorkian). Why would a man so intelligent and successful end up in jail for murder? Well believe or not he purposely challenged the legal system in a one man crusade to ignite a national discussion on the subjects of assisted suicide, Euthanasia and one’s constitutional right to choose. Euthanasia is a medical procedure that involves a person being induced with a soothing, relaxing medicine that allows them a peaceful passing. Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, summed it up best when he said, "We’re just talking about the right not of children and not of mentally incompetent people but the right of mentally competent adults to make decisions about their own bodies as to how much suffering they have to undergo.” (Kevorkian). Euthanasia is not for people experiencing temporary illness or unhappiness. It’s for people who are imprisoned by their own unbearable physical pain for the rest of their lives with no way out. Is it fair to not give those people a choice? Is it fair to make them slowly deteriorate while losing their dignity? I think not. That is why I support euthanasia being legalized, “Dying is not a crime.” (Fridstein. 1).

When someone is diagnosed with a terminal disease, they might like to have the decision to end their life. Many states, including most recently California, have passed the law to allow patients to die with the assistance of a doctor. The terminally ill patient must only have six month or less to live. Allowing people the right to end their life when they are suffering, is the right thing to

The right to die privilege is proposed by the human rights movement is meant for the patients who have suffered for a long time and may wish to end their life. According to the movement, the decision to end life should come from the patient and not the doctor. However, when the affected person decides to end their life, they communicate with the medical officers who will intern administer drugs that will facilitate to end life. The benefits of the right to die privilege include; the right brings to an end of the pain and misery that they have gone through for a long time. The patient has a chance to die with dignity without the fear that they may lose their sight and hearing capability due to age (Judson & Harrison, 2016). The medical bill

The right-to-die also known as dying with dignity refers to various issues related to the decision of whether a person should be allowed to refuse extraordinary measures intended to prolong their life when they are terminally ill or comatose. It also refers to the idea that a person with a terminal illness should be allowed to commit suicide before death naturally occurs. This may be done by the withdrawal of feeding tubes and other artificial means of life support or with assistance from a physician.

Some political groups are now proposing that there should be a “right to die” so that those who are experiencing a painful terminal illness or debilitating condition could chose to end their life with assistance from a physician. In the past

Millions of people die each year from terminal illnesses such as heart disease, respiratory infections, and several types of cancers. Doctors find it necessary to force patients to stay alive regardless of their wishes. Some patients would like to die with dignity and on their own terms. Hospitalized patients whose life will end soon, due to a terminal disease, should be able to proceed to end it if they desire. If the states would allow them the right to die, “many patients with diminishing health would be relieved of their pain and hurt” (The Benefits). No one wants to suffer or to see his loved ones suffer. The pain and suffering is unnecessary and causes a lot of stress on the doctors, patients, and the patients’ families. 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

The Right to Die Modern medical technology has made it possible to extend the lives of many far beyond when they would have died in the past. Death, in modern times, often ensures a long and painful fall where one loses control both physically and emotionally. Some individuals embrace the time that modern technology buys them; while others find the loss of control overwhelming and frightening. They want their loved ones to remember them as they were not as they have become. Some even elect death to avoid burdens of lingering on. They also seek assistance in doing so from medicine.