Persuasive Essay On Assisted Suicide

Francis Bacon once said, “I do not believe that any man fears to be dead, but only the stroke of death.” In other words, people are not afraid to die. Rather, they are afraid of the way in which they are going to die. Today, four centuries of medical progress later, Bacon’s words are truer than ever. Medical advances have allowed physicians to prolong the lives of their patients, or maybe it would be better to say, to prolong their deaths. People are made to live too long in ways they would not choose: dependent upon machines, lying in comas, and suffering unbearable pain. Bacon’s “stroke of death” has become the “stretch of death,” giving people all that much more to fear.

Physician assisted suicide is an act of compassion that respects patient’s choice and fulfills an obligation of non-abandonment (Sulmasy & Mueller, 2017). Death is the inevitable end of life of a person or organism. As humans, we live the best way we can and with medicine and technology, humans can live a quality and healthy life-style. However, there is no human who is supernaturally immune from diseases and accidents.

It is argued that assisting the suicide of a patient is still killing the patient. In the Hippocratic Oath, killing the patient is going against the first promise of self-restraint that medical professions are sworn to abide by in the Hippocratic Oath. Medical professionals would technically be forswearing the Hippocratic Oath if they were to partake in the assisted suicide of the patient (Top 10 Pros and Cons). Individuals against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia use the quote, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” from the Hippocratic Oath (Top 10 Pros and Cons). In conclusion, some health care professionals strongly believe that it is taboo to legalize physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia since it is once again, breaking the Hippocratic

Oregon was the first US state to legalize physician-assisted suicide in 1997. This allows terminally ill, mentally competent patients with less than six months to live, the ability to request a prescription for life-ending medication. Afterwards, Washington State, Vermont, Montana and New Mexico rendered the practice legal. In 2013, roughly 300 terminally ill Americans were prescribed lethal medications, and around 230 people died as a result of taking them (The Guardian, 2014). Therefore, even with the medication at their disposal some patients choose not to take it.

Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide, is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.

Physician-assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in the medical field. It is a topic that has been debated over for years. Webster’s dictionary defines this terms as, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent” (Merriam-Webster). In other words, it is a way that when a patient is ill, they can commit suicide with the help of a physician. This practice is legal in some states in the United States and in many countries around the world. This topic is so controversial because people disagree on whether it is ethical to help someone end another person’s life. There are many people that advocate this and there are also many people that disagree with helping someone commit suicide.

Physician assisted suicide is a crime almost everywhere, by one statute or another. In countries where assisted suicide is legal, there are guidelines, such as mandatory written request, administration by physicians only, and mandatory reporting of suicide, to prevent any abuse, however, they are often not enforced, or violated. Currently Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, and Montana are the only states in the U.S that have legalized assisted suicide. Those who oppose assisted suicide argue that the legalization of it may have unintended consequences, that are not confined to only those states citizens. A person who is terminally ill, disabled, or elderly, may look to assisted suicide as an only resort, rather than a last resort, which it was initially intended to be. Assisted suicide should be abolished throughout the United States.

Places all around the world have legalized assisted suicide and it has proven successful in every place. Canada, Japan, Germany, Switzerland the USA, including California, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and Montana, all these places have experienced and legalized assisted suicide, and every place has had an overwhelming increase in the happiness and welfare of its overall population. Canadian justices, while explaining their change in heart over assisted suicide said, “What has changed...is that other countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia and Switzerland, plus four American states, have shown that assisted dying can be well regulated” (Last Rights, 2016, para. 4). This in itself expresses that because of the success other countries have already received, the implementation

In the ever changing role and dynamic atmosphere that healthcare provides, unique challenges and opportunities constantly arise which are a multi-faceted labyrinth of ethical and moral dilemma. One of the most contested and widely debated topics to be found in the healthcare workplace today is the subject of Assisted Suicide. Altering a person’s course of death into a process driven role, rather than the client’s final life event, creates a myriad of ethical and moral dilemmas.

A painful death is not a good one, wouldn’t you want to die a peaceful death? If you know you are going to die anyways wouldn’t you want it a lot more quickly and painless. The only person who can help these people are the doctors so you need the doctors to help these people who are suffering in their daily lives. Helping people this way is called doctor-assisted suicide. I believe that doctor-assisted suicide is okay and should be allowed because of.

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.

If someone wants to end their life peacefully instead of dying painfully at the hands of a deadly disease they should be allowed to do that. Every year thousands of people suffer and die at the crippling hands of extremely painful, deadly diseases. Terminally ill patients should have the right to die with the assistance of a doctor.

The word suicide gives many people negative feelings and is a socially taboo subject. However, suicide might be beneficial to terminally ill patients. Physician- assisted suicide has been one of the most controversial modern topics. Many wonder if it is morally correct to put a terminally ill patient out of their misery. Physicians should be able to meet the requests of their terminally ill patients. Unfortunately, a physician can be doing more harm by keeping someone alive instead of letting them die peacefully. For example, an assisted suicide can bring comfort to patients. These patients are in excruciating pain and will eventually perish. The government should not be involved in such a personal decision. A physician- assisted suicide comes with many benefits for the patient. If a person is terminally ill and wants a physician assisted suicide, then they should receive one.

In 1939 Adolf Hitler initiated a program called “Aktion 4”, the first step towards genocide. The purpose of this program was to eliminate “life unworthy of life”. At first, only sick and disabled children under the age of 3 were a subject to be euthanized. Eventually, it was used as a tool to get rid of “undesirables”: those who did not posses German citizenship or were not of a “master race”, including Jews, Negroes, and Gypsies. What started as a “mercy killing”, ended 3 years later with the extermination camps of the Holocaust. Almost six million innocent people resulted from what was considered a humane act. Only five decades later, new euthanasia movements emerged in Europe. In the Netherlands, euthanasia has been at the center of public debate since the early 1970s. Today, euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands and several other countries, including Belgium and Switzerland. Does history not teach us at all? Some may say that comparing Hitler’s genocide practices to modern euthanasia is too radical. However, according to a study, 30% of all cases in the Netherlands are done without a patient’s consent. In 70% of which this decision is not discussed with a patient.

The debate over the use of euthanasia is ever growing. This is due to the fact of constant increases in medical advances. Medical advances are growing the number of medicines one can be given before palliative care is an option. The main concern of the debate is whether trying new treatments and medicines are necessary before palliative care is given. Two articles will be analyzed using the Aristotelian method. Both articles are valid, but the New York Times article written by Haider Javed Warraich offers a complete perspective using all three persuasive appeals compared to the article written by Terry Pratchett for The Guardian, which the majority is written on emotion.