Persuasive Essay On The Right To Die

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

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

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.

The right to die has been a topic of many debates. People are either strongly opposed to the act, saying things like “In no situation is suicide the right thing to do,” while others argue the exact opposite. No compromises are made as an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, but this is life or death. The answer cannot be as simple as yes or no. We all go through difficulties in our lives, some even struggle with depression at times, but unlike those who are depressed or going through a rough patch, there are those who are doomed to deal with physical pain the rest of their lives. How could we deprive them the choice of a painless death, when letting them die slowly on a hospital bed is the only other option? Physician assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill should be legalized in America, because physician assisted suicide saves those who are hurting from living the rest of their lives in agony.

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is one of the most controversial issues in health care. Euthanasia is intentionally ending one’s life to relieve persistent pain and suffering. Dr. Kevorkian, an assisted suicide activist, was known for using unorthodox methods of terminating a life. As a result, he made headlines in 90’s. Dr. Kevorkian brought dignity to those suffering from unbearable terminal diseases by terminating their life with a lethal dose of potassium chloride. (Schencker, 2015)

Euthanasia, in today’s world, is a word with opposing meanings. Originally, it meant “a good death” (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Since the legalization of euthanasia around the world in the early 1990’s, the meaning has changed. Several pro-euthanasia sites would call it a humane and peaceful way to end the dying process, by either stopping the course of treatment or the use of lethal doses of medications (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Con-euthanasia activists are most concerned about the slippery slope idea, being euthanasia is only a half-way house to legalizing murder (Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org, 2016). When discussing a topic so sensitive as death, an invisible line appears between a right way and a wrong way to die. By the end of this paper, the hope is to have an educated discussion regarding some social and political inquiries surrounding euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can often get confused with one another and although both are 2 different practices, they share the same end goal; a peaceful death. Today, only a few countries in the entire world have legalized the practice of euthanasia, showing just how controversial the topic has become in recent years. Should someone be able to die just because they feel like it or should valid reasons be required? And who gets to decide whether an assisted suicide is allowed or not? The answers to questions like these are never simple but to guarantee the freedoms of liberty that were given to many in the form of government constitutions, all these questions and more must be answered. Although life on Earth is a gift that was

The right to die debate has been an ongoing dispute between opposing sides of this controversial topic. The right to die is the decision made by an individual to die with dignity when they are still capable of continuing their life with the necessary support and equipment. It is a voluntary decision by an individual who is regarded as terminally ill to commit suicide with the refusal of any type of life support that sustains their life. Fatally ill patients who choose to end their own life can do so through physician prescribed medications.

Imagine being diagnosed with an incurable disease and told that you have less than six months to live. For the past few decades the united states has been debating whether physician assisted death should be legalized or remain illegal. Assisted deaths are legal in the states of Oregon, washington, vermont, california, and montana but remains illegal in 37 states. Would you want to be given the option or take on a natural death? Ultimately, assisted suicide is gaining importance in our society today.

When an individual is dying of a disease or illness and death is forthcoming, that a person should have the option that allows for a painless and quick alternative to endless prolonged days, weeks, or even months of suffering. And by legalizing assisted suicide, the individual would be provided with the alternative decision to no longer have suffer the excruciating pain due to the humiliation and the inadequate medical services at the loss of their individual dignity as their bodies turn against them. Although the decision is personal and is up to the individual, which politics, religion and the law should have no place, and the individual who is suffering from imminent death should have the choice to this world as peaceful and with as much dignity as possible. Assisted suicide/euthanasia has an issue since the 5th century and still is a controversial debate today. The ancient Greeks and Romans believed that an individual should have a choice in choosing whether or not to die as long as it was within reasonable rights. Some physicians back then would have a supply of poison for their patients who were terminally ill and wanted to die a quick death.

Last year a young woman named Brittany Maynard made headlines when her choice of “assisted suicide” became publicized through a mutual friend. She became a public figure and advocate for the “Right to die”. Throughout the years and more recently in my personal work experience I have encountered numerous people; even relatives with life threatening illnesses, most of them who went on to die. I have often wondered how many of these people would take advantage of their right to die on their own terms if there were certain laws in place. If you woke up tomorrow with a debilitating, and life threatening illness how would you react. Would you go in time, or would you go on your own time. If your choice would be to go in your own time, there is a

In March of 1998, a woman named Brittany Maynard received the news of her diagnosis of stage 4 Glioblastoma, with a maximum of 6 months to live. She became the face of the ‘right to die movement’ when she decided to move to Oregon with her husband and mother to utilize the Death with Dignity act. Five months prior in November of 1977, the Oregon Death with Dignity act was passed. The law had allowed terminally ill patients who had been given 6 months or less to live the choice to decide whether to live life or not. The law does not include those who have been on life support nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked the physician to help them commit suicide (CNN). Many people are stuck on the idea that physician assisted suicide violates the life-saving tradition of medicine, However, physician assisted suicide should be legalized for suffering patients to have one last request for a peaceful death.

The opponents of euthanasia claim that there are three main reasons for the criminalization of assisted suicide. The first reason is that some people abuse euthanasia and misuse it for their own unacceptable circumstance. Although Betty Coumbias is healthy, she requested for euthanasia because she wanted to die simultaneously with her husband who suffers from deadly disease. Here, Betty Coumbias is completely violating the purpose of euthanasia. To be specific, it isn’t right for physically or mentally normal people to ask for euthanasia and there aren’t any laws or realistic safety nets that can block these abuses. The second reason is that the patients usually draw misjudgments when they suffer physically and mentally at the moment of their decision. David William once seriously considered euthanasia because of his horrendous back pain. After recovering from the disease, he now says, “Everything was great. And then it all went wrong. Things do flash by you at that point.” The

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.