Human Beings Are Born With Inalienable Rights Essay

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.

Imagine a cancer patient on a short rode to death. The pain this patient is experiencing is unreal and unimaginable to most. The pain medicine that can be used does little to take the agony away. The doctors can put the patient in an induced coma, but what kind of living is that? It is not living. The patient does not want to go on. Is it so wrong to ask for a way out? With less than six months to live, the patient’s hope is gone. Many argue that euthanasia is not ethical, but is it really ethical to let someone live in constant, horrifying pain and agony? While in some cases having the right to die might result in patients giving up on life, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states for terminally ill patients with worsening or unbearable pain.

Physician assisted death (PAD), is death made possible by a physician providing a patient with the means to end their life. There are compelling conclusions that argue for and against PAD, but when they are weighed against each other the arguments to legalize PAD by far outweigh the arguments against legalizing PAD. PAD should be legalized.

A patient has to judge his or her own quality of life, making the action of assessing if a patient’s quality of life is so low that they should be considered for PAD. Although dogs and humans are very different creatures, anatomically and spiritually, PAD is the same concept of putting a dog to sleep. Both beings are loved by others greatly and both experience a low quality of life when they are ill. But why is it better to put dogs down when they are suffering, but it is not ethical for it to be done when a human is suffering? 7.6 million companionship animals were put down last year (2014) (ASPCA). The same idea and process are behind PAD. Physician Assisted Death is not abused by physicians, despite what many people believe PAD is very uncommon, even in states where it is legal. “Approximately 1 of 1,000 Oregonians obtain and use a lethal dose of medication; 17% personally considered it as an option.” (Lachman). But America is not the only place where is a controversy. “85% of 218 nurses in Australia carried out the request the physician’s request for active euthanasia” (Lachman), and “10,000 citizens of the Netherlands, where PAD is legal,

Critics of PAD have expressed concern about abuse and error in assisted death, but less so about the same margins when it comes to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. They say that there is a clear difference between the act of ending one’s life and simply withdrawal of treatment. (K) However, it is also important to note that this does not mean that those against PAD are for preserving life at all costs, as witnessed by withdrawing care that does no more than prolong suffering. (F) Proponents argue that the act of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is just as likely to lead to death as a physician giving a lethal dose of a substance, so why are physicians legally required to respect one choice, but not the other? (K) The end result of PAD is comparable to actions that are legally performed by physicians, such as aggressive palliative care, and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. (K)

The Declaration of Independence stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This shows that all Americans are secured with indisputable rights which must include the right to live life as well as end it if need be. Even though Physician Assisted Death is not listed in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” However, in forty-four states, terminally-ill patients do not have the right to die. Physician Assisted Death is when a terminally-ill patient undergoes counseling before a trusted doctor can prescribe a lethal dose of drugs for the patient to terminate his life peacefully. Having Physician Assisted Death available as an option to terminally-ill will allow patients to exercise their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, relieve them from unbearable pain, and lessen the agony of the patient’s family.

Physician assisted death (PAD) is the voluntary termination of one’s own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. PAD is a topic of discussion where one side believes that it will cause more harm than good because it conflicts with the physician's role as a healer, very difficult to control, and would pose a societal risk. While the other side believes that patients have the right to do what they want to their bodies and to end their suffering if they are terminally ill. Now there are plenty of other arguments for both sides and the two arguments make strong cases. For example, some say that the patient’s pain and suffering will end, patients

Like euthanasia, is it consider PAD? Unfortunely, euthanasia is not the same as PAD. What makes PAD different from euthanasia is that the patient carries out the action of administering the medication to end the his/her life. Euthanasia is when the physician is directly administering the lethal dose to end the patient’s life. And there is some other practice that are different from PAD, such as withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, pain medication that may hasten death, and palliative sedation. The main focus of this article question, is PAD ethically permissible or not? It listed the proponent and the opposed side of the debate and whether it should be illegal. There are only 3 state that had legalized PAD: Oregon, Washington, and Vermont under strict patient eligibility

Physician assisted death, often referred to as death with dignity or euthanasia, is a practice that is debated globally and practiced limitedly. It is when a physician helps a patient with a terminal condition carry out their elective death, usually through prescriptions or other medical means. The debate regarding this controversial practice has many sides, one being the defense of the sanctity of life. This claim operates on the premise that human lives have innate value as determined by God, and therefore physician assisted death is an unjust practice and an invalidation of the worth of human life. However, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sartre, it becomes evident that each individual creates and determines their own significance,

Physician-Assisted Death (PAD) is a rising practice in the United States. PAD is the act in which a doctor prescribes a “potentially lethal” medication to a terminally ill patient at their request. Other names for Physician-Assisted Death are Physician-Aid-in-Dying, Physician Assisted Suicide, and Patient Administered Hastened Death. This act is commonly confused with a very similar practice known as Euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as the act of assisting people with their death in order to end their suffering, but without the backing of a controlling legal authority.

In United States, Euthanasia is a highly controversial subject among politicians, legislators and society members. Just the mention of this issue polarizes different groups on opposing ends as some either support it and others want to keep it illegal and unlawful(Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, &Zwahlen, 2013). The main ideology that is discussed in the situation is whether an individual has a right on his own life in cases of terminal illness where there is no way of recovering according to medical professionals. The argument that is for the provision of assisted-death for terminally ill can be understood by other names of Euthanasia which are- mercy-killing and dignity-death. These names are given to the practice of physical assisted-death as it allows the terminally ill patients to avoid the extreme pain, constant awareness of certain death and humiliating medical conditions that are part of some terminal illnesses. In this report, the present state of Euthanasia has been evaluated in context of United States. The goal is to look for the existing political and legislative environment for and against Euthanasia and identify an appropriate solution.

When it comes to the topic of people dying, it is generally a hard to get people to discuss. It is something that does not come easy for people to talk about. No one wants to talk about a life after they die. Assisted suicide or Physicians aid-in dying (PAD) use to be something that you hear about every now and then but is starting to become more commonly discussed not only in the medical field but in general. It is starting to come to people 's attention because to some it is viewed as immoral while to other people see it fit for people who are suffering from horrible diseases who are dying. Physician aid-in-dying (PAD) refers to a practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient 's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life (Braddock). Assisted suicide has been outlawed in a most states through popular vote. It is only legal in a few states though. When a patient has been in the hospital and there is no way for them to possibly be cured they sometimes begin to become depressed and its not hard for doctors to notice a change in their patients. Some people refer to these individuals as terminally ill and not able to make decisions on their own. When some patients are sick they truly believe that ending their own life would make things so much simpler for everyone around them. Of course their family does not want them to die, but it can be a lot of hard

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.

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

As human beings who prize and value their autonomy, one feels entitled to choose at the end of one's life though no such power is present or possible at the beginning. Moreover, one cannot possess a 'right to die', at least not in the same way one is said to have the right to life. In fact, the very notion of the right to die is an absurd claim, because we all will die: this is an inevitable, undisputed fact of human life. What one really means to say is that one should have the right to die 'on one's own terms.' Yet, let us look at the right to life. If someone has an absolute right to life, then within that right is embedded the obligation or duty of others to respect and preserve this right. The 'right to die', if it is also said to be a right in this sense, it must also imply an obligation to the person who has claim to this right. So, others, doctors or family members, would have the obligation to kill someone who makes a stable, competent request for death. This, of course, would have serious implications for health care providers - particularly with regard to what end of life care really