Persuasive Essay On The Right To Die

Abstract: This paper discusses the medical ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Focusing on the ideas of legal vs illegal, the different views of PAS will both be addressed. While active euthanasia is illegal, passive euthanasia, or allowing natural death, is completely legal everywhere. PAS will help patients end suffering for themselves at the end of their lives, as well as the family's. The price of the drug may be expensive but the price of medical treatments continues to rise. The Hippocratic Oath does not support the aid in ending a life, however it has been changed in the past. Many citizens are afraid that is PAS was considered legal, it would grow into something even more illegal being debated. Also, the religious aspect of the end of life had conflicting views as some believe PAS is ending suffering, a good deed, and other believe PAS is not respecting a human life. PAS is only legal in seven states but has gained the attention of many others and other places around the world.

In homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered—should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. Anyone can kill themselves, but what happens when one is not capable of physically doing so and at the same exact time is also terminally ill. When is it okay for a physician to use their medical expertise, and oblige with a incurably patient; to agree that one’s life is worth ending. Where is the line drawn? Legally, physician-assisted suicide is a criminal offense; you are after all killing another human. Morally, is it okay to watch someone die in agonizing pain and stand-by because God told us all too. This essay will explore and analyze the legal aspect of physician-assisted suicide, what does the law say. As well as, the moral implications of physician-assisted suicide, it is ever okay, and the consequences it will have on our society.

When talking about doctors, death and incurable diseases, one of the most controversial topic that comes up is Physician assisted suicide. Webster’s dictionary define it as, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information.” Most of us have experienced the pain of seeing our loved ones dying in a hospital since doctors and modern medicine can only help us so much. Physician assisted suicide not only helps alleviates the never ending pain, but patient also dies with dignity. On the other hand, people who oppose it, have strong religious and ethical beliefs. They think that Physician assisted suicide demeans the human value and violates doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. After researching a lot about this topic, I decided that taking a moderate stance would be the best option because even though I agree that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) goes against medical ethics and religious beliefs I also believe that sometimes PAS is the best option available for people who are fatally sick and want to die with dignity and peace. In this paper I will discuss the history of physician assisted suicide, why is it important to have this option available and how should we limit PAS to make a compromise with people who are against it.

There are instances when people who are terminally ill or severely injured who want to terminate their own lives. Sometimes, due to the state of their injuries or conditions, those people are unable to end their own pain. It is in many of these cases that the patients request assistance in their suicides. This kind of request is like to happen in facilities where the patient receives long term or permanent care. Physician assisted suicide is a hotly contested issue. There is support for those who believe this kind of "assistance" is morally, ethically, and otherwise wrong. There is support from people who believe that a person has a right to choose when his/her life ends. These people believe that physician assisted suicide is a form of altruistic assistance. There are valid points made by people on both sides of this issue and there is certainly room within the debate to be undecided or to be conflicted. Secondary, tertiary, and long term providers/facilities have the power to improve the preservation of life and they have the power to assist with the end of life. The paper presents arguments of this debate and reflects upon the issues at the surface as well as the underlying issues of the debate over physician assisted suicide.

Many people have been faced with having to deal with hard truths of both life and death. One of these decisions that can be fronted to a person with a terminal illness may be what to do next. With what can be considered looming doom, one has to ingest the decisions of self, family and the pain that lies ahead. The debate over physician assisted suicide has been a long time argument wielding both positive and negative views exactly how a person should proceed once a decision has been made. Three questions are often asked in the attempt to argue the case for physician assisted suicide, that of legality, ethicalness, and morality. In the long run, the debate between the cause, effect and personal ideology that is social

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.

"Only because I knew that I could not and would not kill my patients was I able to enter most fully and intimately into caring for them as they lay dying (Doerflinger, Richard M., M.D, and Carlos F. Gomez, Ph.D). In this quote given by a physician, one sees that even from a professional’s standpoint on physician-assisted suicide, one is opposed to that act of helping someone to take his or her own life. When given the opportunity, this physician would rather help to improve the life of the patient rather than ending a life that does not need to end and that is the viewpoint that all should take on this controversial topic. Throughout this paper, one will see just how affected people are by the repercussions

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

“My aim in helping the patient was not to cause pain. My aim was to end suffering,” American pathologist Jack Kevorkian once said. Some agree with this quotation and some are completely against it. This quotation is discussing the topic of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as people or domestic animal) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Merriam-Webster, 2017). Euthanasia is also known as assisted suicide. Though, is it really as heinous of a crime as many think? Euthanasia is needed in certain situations to cease the suffering of medically distressed people. First, we’ll describe the issues of a non-euthanasian society. Next, we’ll talk about the effects euthanasia has on people. Last, but not least, we’ll address the possible methods of establishing a society who accepts euthanasia. First, let's describe the issues of a society that doesn’t accept euthanasia.

Killing someone can be okay in some circumstances. Euthanasia is having a doctor assist in killing a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or irreversible coma. It comes from the Greek words eu meaning well and thanatos meaning death. Currently this practice is illegal in most countries. However many doctors have different viewpoints whether this should be legal or not. Legalizing euthanasia gives terminally ill patients the option to end their suffering, gives them a right to die with dignity, and have the right to die based on their beliefs.

People expire every day, Yes, but there are others whom are fading slower and are in more agony. The discomfort that they are suffering is very long-lasting either it could be suffering from a congenital illness or a disease such as having H.I.V, cancer, or possible a heart defect, the ages can range from newborn to elderly. Does an individual stand the right to request an assisted suicide death in the United States of America? If so, why isn’t it approved.

In the United States of America, citizens have the right to speak their mind, the right to a public and speedy trial, and now, those in the LGBTQ community have the right to legally marry the love of their life. But, one right has yet to be passed in a majority of our 50 states; the right to die and the right of an assisted suicide. Who should make this decision? Should it be the federal government, or the states and their legislatures? As of November 30, 2017, only six states have passed the right to an assisted suicide, and one other has issued the law based on separate court decision (“Death with Dignity”). The federal government has not been given the authority to intervene in the decision-making process as the tenth amendment in the Constitution of the United States declares, “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, the federal government continues to join in on the debate despite what the Constitution clearly states. Tenth amendment rights are therefore being eroded. The federal government’s actions weaken the tenth amendment in this country.

As people age they begin to realize their fear of a painful death. This has lead to the desire for the creation of a “right to die”, where a person can be made dead painlessly with the help of a medical practitioner. Many believe that such a right is morally necessary, to prevent unnecessary suffering and because they feel patients deserve a death with dignity. Religious groups appear split on the issue, some arguing for the sanctity of life and others arguing that allowing unnecessary suffering is evil. Opponents of the right to die argue that the right cannot be a right at all and that if it were enforced regardless of this it would lead us down a path where the value of life is lost and the desire for improvements in medical technology is reduced. This complex issue will have resounding effects on the future of humanity and is important to consider carefully.