Right Of Death And Power Over Life

Having the right to die is a very controversial and popular topic. It is so popular that it is even currently under debate. Having the right to die means that a terminally ill or chronically in pain patient would have the choice to medically end their life by way of medication or injection. Having the right to die can also mean choosing to be taken off machines that are keeping a person alive or it can mean being given a lethal concoction of medication in order to end a life. There are many different ways that right to die can be utilized. The basic procedures are simple in principle: Doctors certify that the patient qualifies under the law, by virtue of fulfilling the stated criteria then after appropriate waiting periods, the physician writes a prescription for life-ending chemicals. The laws do not specify how and when the patient should take the chemicals intended to bring immediate death, so that part of the process is left in the hands of the individuals(2007, January 1).

The recent decision by British Parliament to overwhelmingly reject the right to die law that would have allowed terminally ill adults to end their lives with medical supervision preserves the Suicide Act 1961 that protects vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse by those who might have an interest, financial or otherwise, in their deaths.

In Foucault’s work “The Body and Sexuality” Foucault suggests, power no longer asserts itself as a deduction, as a "right of death." The primary interest of power now is

One famous case involving death with dignity was the death of Brittany Maynard. Brittany Maynard was a 29-year-old woman who was married and everything seemed to be going good until she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. She was diagnosed with grade 2 Astrocytoma, a brain cancer. She was hoping to have a chance to overcome this illness, but the cancer returned, only much worse than before. The diagnosis was grade 4 astrocytoma. Only given a few months to live, she and her family decided that death with dignity was the best option. Living in California, assisted suicide was not an option. So she moved to Oregon because death with dignity is legal there. She ended her life on November 1, 2014, next to family. This case was famous because

left alone by their doctors when the suffering becomes unbearable and use of the law is requested. “The most significant impact of the death with dignity law in Oregon has been to improve the care for all dying patients, by increasing awareness among doctors, allowing an open and honest conversation, improving pain management and palliative care, and providing patients with a sense of control and peace of mind.” Doctors are being aware of the causes and the good tis law really is, it is highly improving so many things dealing with life and health. A patient who is suffering intolerably needs the assistance from someone who will be there to help them in their end of life decision.

The Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) was passed in the state of Oregon on November 8, 1994, and allowed competent, terminally ill patients 18 years old or older and were also state residents to acquire a prescription of barbiturates from a doctor to end their own life when their anguish became intolerable.6 208 individuals died under the DWDA. 36% of patients who received the lethal prescription never took them.2 This insinuates that patients dealing with immense suffering from a terminal illness at least sought control over the situation.

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

Modern day power originates from the mind in that we give certain figures power based upon man-made forms of value or worth like money. The definition of power has fluctuated throughout time, and while the past may have emphasized the more violent aspects, today, we have shifted towards a more control based interpretation. Both Michael Foucault and John Berger delve into the idea of power and its functionality. Based on their texts, in our current socio-cultural setting, power is best exploited when the concept behind the power is deindividualized for many purposes, internalized by the people, and integrated throughout society to the point that its origins is mystified.

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.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

First what is Biopower? Well according to Foucault, biopower is a technology of power, which is a way of managing and controlling entire populations. Biopower led to the emergence of the modern nation state and capitalism. Foucault describes it as "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations” (Foucault 140). The primary and most important goal of biopower is life. The government goal is to secure and improve people’s lives. Power is exercised exclusively over life, and is exercised either to foster life or to disallow it. Biopower according to Foucault is a power that “exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavours to

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and served an eight year prison sentence. (Fridstein. 1). This accomplished physician graduated from the University of Michigan with an impressively high IQ. He was a writer, inventor, movie producer and classical composer. (Kevorkian). Why would a man so intelligent and successful end up in jail for murder? Well believe or not he purposely challenged the legal system in a one man crusade to ignite a national discussion on the subjects of assisted suicide, Euthanasia and one’s constitutional right to choose. Euthanasia is a medical procedure that involves a person being induced with a soothing, relaxing medicine that allows them a peaceful passing. Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, summed it up best when he said, "We’re just talking about the right not of children and not of mentally incompetent people but the right of mentally competent adults to make decisions about their own bodies as to how much suffering they have to undergo.” (Kevorkian). Euthanasia is not for people experiencing temporary illness or unhappiness. It’s for people who are imprisoned by their own unbearable physical pain for the rest of their lives with no way out. Is it fair to not give those people a choice? Is it fair to make them slowly deteriorate while losing their dignity? I think not. That is why I support euthanasia being legalized, “Dying is not a crime.” (Fridstein. 1).

Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.

What I’m interested in exploring with the series of work Apparatus of Sovereign Power as Mechanisms of Control, are the functions of biopower (a term devised by French philosopher Michel Foucault which applies to the concept of controlling populations and managing people1), the political mechanisms through which biopower operates, and the effects on identity and the physical self. In this small body of work, I have created four drawings in charcoal that make an attempt to mock scenarios in which sovereign states utilize mechanisms (in the form of regulations and physical forces) to control and regulate large bodies of people and their territory.

Agamben also uses the biopolitics of the Nazi regime to draw a parallel to liberal, democratic societies in the sense that it shows that all societies have the same line in which, when crossed, one becomes homo sacer. This is the ‘state of exception’, the point in which the sovereign decides, “Which life may be killed without the commission of a homicide” . Agamben leads the argument for the ‘state of exception’ onto one regarding euthanasia. This can be seen as the sovereign uses the ‘state of exception’ to deem ‘brain dead’ people as ‘bare life’. They possess no economic merit to the state and so their life is “devoid of value” . The sovereign as a person, who holds the power to decide whether a person is ‘bios’ or ‘zoe’, falls to people who preside over the health of the individual, he/she can be “a doctor, a psychiatrist, and a jurist” . As these represent the affluent class of society, this shows that biopower is inevitably connected to economic worth.