Persuasive Essay

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

Brittany Maynard was one of the people to use the Death with Dignity Act in Organ and once said,“To have control of my own mind…to go with dignity is less terrifying. When I look at both options I have to die, I feel this is far more humane” (Sandeen, 2014). No matter what, we will all eventually die, but we should have the right to die as humanely as possible. The Death with Dignity Act is an end-of-life choice possibility for terminally ill patients to be given the freedom to decide for themselves what it means to die with dignity. This act allows them to die with dignity by providing them with lethal medications prescribed by a physician (The Oregon Department of Human Services, 2006). The Death with Dignity Act started to allow people with six months or less to live, the right to die in a manner and at the time of their own choosing. Also, even though modern medicine has benefited humanity greatly, it cannot completely resolve the suffering and distress that comes with the dying process, so Death with Dignity can provide a painless end-of-life choice for suffering individuals (Humphry, 2009). Although Death with Dignity is a controversial topic I feel it can be very beneficial especially since people go through a long process just to try to get the medication and the ones that get it really need it. I chose this topic because death always has been interesting to me and I one day hope to have a career

Today, assisted suicide also known as the Death with Dignity Act has become legal in nearly four U.S. States, the act has legalized the ability for terminally ill patients to determine the time of their death. Since the act becoming legal the amount of patients that participated in it grew 65 percent. The act does come with it’s flaws, but it does ensure major things such as; patients can put an end to pain and suffering when they no longer have hope to of recovering, they can arrange for final good-byes with loved ones, and the act prevents in humane suicides.

Unlike, previous reviews, the author begins by defining physician- assisted suicide death and its differences from other forms of euthanasia. In this article, Ardell also addresses the ethical and moral dilemma between letting people have control over their own bodies through assisted suicide and the state’s decision to prevent individuals from taking their lives. Specifically, Ardell compares two countries, Netherlands and the United States, in which physician-assisted suicide is legal and illegal to assessed how each decision has influence patients with terminal illness. Finally, Ardell also focuses on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act to explain how the court decision of legalizing assisted death has impacted a whole community of people, hospitals and generally end-life care for terminally-ill patients. Although, the author doesn’t offer her opinions or a general conclusion about legalizing physician-assisted suicide, she explains that most Oregon physician assisted suicide cases has been about achieving a “death with dignity” or a death in control, rather than preventing pain. Hence, this article is important for my research paper because it explores both the legal and moral repercussion of legalizing physician -assisted suicide in the context of achieving a “death with

Choosing to die with the assistance of a physician is a much debated controversial issue in the states. Assisted suicide is where a patient with a terminal disease choose to take their life to relieve their suffering, sometimes with the aid of a physician, and is legal in only five states. Assisted suicide is “legal in Washington, Oregon, California, Vermont and Bernalillo County,New Mexico(Death with).” This option should be available to patients in all states, because terminally ill patients should have the choice to end their suffering if their pain becomes unbearable. Terminal patients should be able to die on their own terms.

Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics in the United States and other parts of the world today. Assisted death allows mentally proficient, terminally-ill adult patients to request access to life-ending medication from their physician. This type of assisted death is promoted by organizations such as the Death with Dignity National Center, who advocate for countrywide advances in end-of-life care and extended options for individuals near death. Although there are various arguments that state it is both immoral and unethical, physician-assisted suicide is a viable and honorable method to provide end-of-life options to the terminally-ill and to provide better support, relief, and comfort to dying patients. This topic

As of January 2015 there are five states in the U.S. that have declared the Death with Dignity Act a constitutional right for a competent, terminally ill patient. Under what conditions is physician assisted suicide morally acceptable, is the question at hand and did these states make the right decision on such a slippery slope debate. This paper will go on to explain one side of this very touchy debate, it will also consider objections from the other side, and ultimately defend the position physician assisted suicide is wrong not only morally but also, ethically.

Determining the value of one’s life is purely subjective and can only be done on an individual basis, therefore prohibiting terminal patients from considering a death with dignity is an unfair extension of pain and suffering. Physician assisted death should be regulated so that all qualifying patients will have the opportunity to die with dignity if they so wish.

In 1994, Oregon became the first state to pass a bill legalizing physician aid-in-dying (Richardson, 2011). This law would allow a terminally ill patient with 6 months or less to live to end their life by their own terms (“It’s Not Assisted Suicide”, 2011). This bill leads to the question “Why would a form of purposeful death be legalized?” The bill, itself was passed for many reasons including the fact that the patients want to have control over their life and ultimately their death (“It’s Not Assisted Suicide”, 2011). They also do not want to live in fear of what will eventually happen to them. “Death with Dignity” was passed is because many terminally-ill patients do not want to live in excruciating pain and in fear of what will happen to them, living a prolonged life or taking control over one’s death is a personal choice belonging only to the individual making it.

Imagine living with a terminal illness that causes immense pain and suffering. It’s likely that many of us have not given it much thought. It’s much easier to believe that it won’t happen to us. The reality, however, is that people are diagnosed with these terrible illnesses every day. So, what options do patients have? For many years’, members of the medical community have discussed the practice of physician assisted suicide. This would allow terminally ill patients, many of whom have cancer, to make the difficult decision to end their lives peacefully. Doctors are able to simply write their patient a prescription, designed to end a person’s life in a non-painful way. Doctors and medical personnel have struggled with this topic, exploring the various consequences and benefits that come with making assisted suicide legal. Currently, physician assisted suicide has been made legal across a handful of states in the U.S; however, many people continue to question the ethicality of this practice. There are many different arguments to explore for and against physician assisted suicide. Some believe that physician assisted suicide will lead to involuntary euthanasia, while others say patients should have the choice to live or die. While each individual conviction may seem vastly different, they do share something in common: Their concern for the well-being of others.

Physician-assisted suicide, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or by information provided by a physician aware of the patient's intent” (Merriam Webster), has been debated over for many years. It has often been called a death with dignity, “but there’s nothing dignified about the methods they advocate” (Torr et al. 56). Physician-assisted suicide has been a widely publicized controversy, and yet there have been many misunderstandings about the issue. It is not only a means of death for a comatose or dying patient, but it is also a way to kill people with depression and even infants in some places of the world. Although others may argue that physician-assisted suicide is an opportunity for the elderly and the disabled to make a choice about their death, euthanasia would threaten them more than give them freedom. Permitting this malicious practice does not just discard religion and ethics, but it also desensitizes society to killing, advertising physician-assisted suicide as a simple solution.

Source: CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Health, United States, 2002. Flegal et. al. JAMA. 2002;288:1723-7. NIH, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults, 1998.

“Your assignment is to write a persuasive essay and present it to the class in a week. You will be graded based on how convincing it is. Today we will be choosing topics,” announced Mr. Bowerbank, my 7th grade English teacher and ruler of classroom 110. My class simultaneously groaned at the prospect of work. I simply lifted my head with intrigue as it was already May and about time we had our first essay. He then proceeded to give examples of topics we could choose and gave us some time to think before we had to tell him our topic. My classmates were already rushing to tell the teacher their idea lest someone else steal it. That meant the usual abortion, death penalty, or drug use topics were out. I really couldn't think of anything and the teacher was slowly making his way through the remaining students like an executioner beheading criminals in a line. I have always thought that he would make a marvelous supervillain if he had a curly mustache, a tophat, and a cape. Eventually my name was called. I slowly dragged myself over to his desk. Even sitting down, he still seemed to tower over me. “What is your topic Cindy?” As usual in such desperate times, my mind turned to food. “Waffles are better than pancakes.” I figured that a waffle was just a differently shaped pancake with a nicer texture. “Hmm. Excellent topic. I look forward to your essay!” I survived to live yet another day.

Why spend money that is really needed for other things? Why live uncomfortably? Why be trapped in this hole called a home that belongs to another person? Why not live free and peacefully? When a person rents he or she usually throws away money that could be used to purchase something that belongs to them. Money is not easy to come by so why pay out hundreds toward something that is not benefit to the person paying it out. There is no good explanation for making a decision like this. The best option in a situation like this is to buy a house. Buying a house is a better option than renting an apartment.

Having escaped rule from a tyrannical British government, the United States was founded on ideals of freedom and equality for all people. These fantasies of universal egalitarianism turned out to be merely that: fantasies. American history is full of stories of the oppressed struggling to get the rights they deserve and of the controversy over these issues that consequently ensues. “The Hypocrisy of American Slavery” by Frederick Douglass and “We Shall Overcome” by Lyndon B. Johnson are two speeches made confronting two of these issues. Douglass’s speech, delivered in 1852, condemns the institution of slavery and maintains that slaves are men and are therefore entitled to freedom. Johnson’s speech, on the other hand, was written in 1965 and discussed the civil rights movement. In it, he implored local governments to allow all American citizens, regardless of race, to vote. Despite the significant gap in time between these two addresses, both speakers use similar persuasive techniques, including ethos, pathos, and parallelism, to convince their audience that change needs to be implemented in America.