Persuasive Essay On The Right To Die

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

Throughout the course of history, advances in medical technology have prolonged the length of life and delayed death; however, terminal illnesses still exist and modern medicine is often unable to prevent death. Many people turn to a procedure known as Physician-Assisted suicide, a process by which a doctor aids in ending a terminally ill patient’s life. This procedure is painless and effective, allowing patients to control their death and alleviate unnecessary suffering. In spite of these benefits, Physician-Assisted suicide is illegal in many places both nationally and internationally. Despite the fact that Physician-Assisted suicide is opposed by many Americans and much of the world on ethical and moral grounds such as those based on

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Death is one of the few inevitable events in life; it’s something everybody must face in their lifetime. Many fear it but for some, it’s an opportunity to embrace freedom and tranquility from their suffering. For the terminally-ill, they want to liberate themselves from their illness but modern medicine, sometimes, can only reduce their pain to a certain degree and others want to have the right to die. Doctors trying to salvage their patients’ lives could possibly cause more harm than giving them what the patients’ wants, Death. As medical professionals, they abide to do no harm to their patients, to only reduce their pain and cope with their suffering but it’s damaging them even more. The last option for many terminally-ill patient is to die and allow medical professionals to help them, which is considered Euthanasia. The practice of Euthanasia should be legalized and provided in the United States as a last resort for the terminally-ill.

Patients suffering from terminal illnesses, battle feeling worthless and hopeless on a daily basis. This is due to our jurisdiction forcing them to live. The number of people suffering continues to increase. Although a doctor’s position is to prolong life, euthanasia should be considered in certain cases. Because of the advances in technology euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are now an option for terminally ill patients who are going to suffer from an incurable and painful disease or are in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized because the public supports it, it would only be used for patients who are terminally ill, and it alleviates unnecessary suffering. The word euthanasia originates

Some individuals with terminal illnesses find solace in knowing that they can exert some power over their illnesses and choose how they want to die. Just as any individual has the legal right to plan out their healthcare wishes and ensure that their end-of-life concerns are taken care of, terminally ill patients should also have the right to have the choice to want to die naturally or end their lives. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide can give the dying individual comfort in knowing that they have options. Physicians presently are allowed to relieve the dying of their pain and suffering by administering lethal doses of pain medications. Terminally ill patients should be able to access lethal doses of medicine voluntarily through their physician to allow them the choice of death. Strong morals and ethics surrounding this issue have split society on whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of a terminal illness can create feelings of uncertainty, fear and helplessness and therefore, physician-assisted suicide laws should be passed nationwide to be able to give those who are dying 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.

Imagine laying in a hospital bed living everyday in extreme pain with no hope of getting better. This scenario explains what many people go through everyday, which is a living with a terminal illness. M. Lee, a science historian, and Alexander Stingl a sociologist, define terminal illness as “an illness from which the patient is not expected to recover even with treatment. As the illness progresses death is inevitable” (1). There are not many options for the terminally ill besides dying a slow and painful death, but assisted suicide could be best option for these patients. Assisted suicide is “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication” (Lee and Stingl 1). Some feel that assisted suicide is unnecessary because it is too great of a controversy and will only cause problems in society. However, assisted suicide should be legal in the United States as long as there are strict regulations to accompany it.

“Americans are not entirely averse to suicide in cases of terminal illness. Currently six in ten Americans believe that a person has a right to end his or her own life if that person has an incurable disease” (Benson 267). It is obvious that most Americans can agree that assisted suicide is the final decision of the terminally ill patient. When it comes down to it, many terminal patients cannot make this decision, because they may live within a state where assisted suicide is illegal. So far, only seven states have made assisted suicide legal and one state has legal physician suicide by court ruling, while the rest still considers assisted suicide illegal. Even though some people do not approve of assisted suicide because of moral or ethical

We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved.  We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive?  For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.   Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their

According to Ullmann-Margalit (51) while dealing with the subject the agony of doubt deliberates that it is among the most confusing issues to deal with. Most people do not want to die, at least not now, and the debate of holding on to the inevitable and that of letting go heats up. Questions arise concerning the social, religious and ethical factors that have to be taken into play while considering end-of-life or right-to-die and thus bringing complexity to an otherwise easy decision. But the most crucial question to ask is: are those in support of the right-to-die justified in their movement? This will be the question that will be addressed in this argumentative essay.

Mortality requires all of us to eventually face death, although when or in what way we do not know. Let’s say you are given two choices: to choose to die earlier but in a peaceful way, or to prolong your life for an unknown amount of time but endure a painful and slow death. For terminally ill patients, this unfortunately is not a hypothetical situation, but a reality of their life, except the majority of them are denied the first option. Some terminal diseases, such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ASL, or more popularly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease), brain cancers, or other neural or muscular degenerative diseases often lead their victims down a unimaginable, unrelenting, brutal, road to death. Is it morally right to deny the victims of these diseases the option of an early, but peaceful death upon their request? Should we force a death filled with suffering upon a terminal patient, or allow them the option of how the last days of their life should play out? Euthanasia, or the killing of a sick person out of mercy, is a largely debated topic in present day, but this has not always been so. It gives these sick patients the option of death to avoid imminent suffering in their later death. Throughout history, the taboo of assisted suicide has changed in different eras, largely due to the authority of religion in history, and later from religion to morals. The issue at present is still an issue of morality, but also about rights; not only a right to live, but also a

     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

Euthanasia encompasses various topics from active euthanasia (introducing something to cause death, in most cases this is a lethal injection of barbiturates), to passive euthanasia which is withholding treatment or support measures such as removing feeding tubes or not performing a lifesaving surgery at the wishes or consent of the patients (voluntary) or the guardian (involuntary) and physician assisted suicide where a doctor prescribes the medicine and the patient voluntarily on their own take it to cause death. To better understand the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide, John E. Ferguson, author of the book "The Right to Die" defines them separately. Euthanasia is, "the act or practice of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition, especially a painful one, for reasons of mercy" (Ferguson 20) whereas assisted suicide is defined in Ferguson's book as, "the intentional act of providing a person with the medical means or medical knowledge to kill themselves" (Ferguson 21). This paper will explore the pros and cons of The right to die movement as well as the ethical and human rights controversy surrounding the subject as it pertains to patients in comas like The Terri Schiavo’s Case and physician-assisted suicide.

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.