Right To Die Essay

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

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.

   The basic dilemma surrounding the subject of assisted suicide is who has the right to choose when someone dies? There are many layers of questions and varying opinions surrounding this right. How can our own self-determination be considered morally wrong when taken in the context of the opinion of others? In a society that stresses individual freedoms why is it that Congress continues to hinder doctor-assisted suicide (Keminer, 2000, p. 8)?

Much of modern medicine prolongs not only living, but also dying. Physician-assisted suicide is a quite controversial topic as it brings up questions about the morality of killing, the credibility of consent, and the duty of physicians. This is not a new problem; assisted suicide has been discussed in all cultures from very early historical times to the present. However, medicine's recent technological progress has led to an increased ability to extend life. This new potential has made this problem much more pressing than it has in the past. I believe opposition to assisted suicide is in error not only because it does not allow for mercy, but also because the position does not take into account one's autonomy. I

There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states

A terminal disease diagnosis changes the outlook on life, leaving the choice of either living life to an inevitably painful death or ending the suffering by seeking a different medical option. A person who is terminally ill requires rigorous treatments to slow down the process of death, but there is an alternative option. Physician-assisted suicide continues to gain attention and is being legalized across the world. The process in the United States is slower, yet a few states have already authorized it. People undermine this option for unethical reasons; however, it enables a person in agonizing pain to end their life before becoming entirely incompetent. Doctors across the nation seek this practice in order to help the patients as well as their families; even though, they could be risking their license. Despite moral values contradicting this practice, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States for terminally ill patients lucid enough to make the decision on their own.

Their cries of desperation are often undermined by the rallies of hope surrounding curable patients. These patients whose degenerating conditions cannot be fixed are forced to live each day in excruciating pain with no glimpse of hope in their future. As citizens of the United States, it is the duty of the people to respect the choices of the patients and relieve their distress. The citizens of the United States live on the basis of freedom, but how can there be freedom to live if there is no freedom to die? People should respect the wishes of those who are simply exercising their freedom to die, rather than arguing that society has an obligation to protect all life (Andre). But who is society to condemn some to life while condemning others to death? With the death penalty enact, the justice department kills guilty parties who have committed the worst crimes. But often, these guilty inmates are not willing to die. Yet there are immobile, unable, and deteriorating lives who are ready to give up their battle, yet they are clinging onto life through numerous machines in a hospice center. These patients, also known as “vegetables” by the healthy part of society, have committed no crime but are basically being punished by serving the rest of their lives in sheer agony. These “vegetables” don’t wish to end their lives because they of depression, but because they want to die in a dignified way. As Antonin Artaud put it, “If I commit suicide, it will

Physician Assisted Suicide has been a very controversial topic in the recent years. P.A.S can also be known as physician assisted death or euthanasia. Many states wonder wither this practice is morally right or wrong. Physician Assisted Suicide is when a doctor administers patient lethal drugs, upon the request of the patient, with the end result being death. A popular question that surfaces when this topic is brought up is: Who should decide if a terminally ill patient had the right to commit physician assisted suicide? In support of the previous statements, this

Brittany Maynard brought up a good argument when she said, “I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice?” (Slotnik). Brittany Maynard was a young woman who found out she had a terminal brain cancer and ended up becoming the public face for the right to die act. Many people believe that this act should not be in place, but in taking this act away people lose their right to choose when they want to die. People may argue the fact that doctors have access the drug with assisted suicide is very unsettling; however, the doctors are professionals who are trusted with this drug. This act is important because it gives the terminally ill one last independent decision before they lose themselves. Taking away the act means taking their free will away from them.

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

Opposing viewpoints argue that human euthanasia is inhumane and unethical to patients and the doctors responsible. Many doctors feel that physician assisted suicide stands against everything they stand for. Physicians feel that they have a responsibility to treat patients not murder them. This viewpoint is concerned incorrect to those whom support the Right to Die movement because a doctor's first responsibility to a patient is not only to heal but as quoted in the Hippocratic Oath is to,"First do no harm” which includes allowing an individual to suffering in longing

Is the phrase “right to die” applicable as a right? Leon R. Kass believes that the claim of a “right to die” is insubstantial because of the precursors pertaining to the meaning of rights. Leon R. Kass believes that the right to die is an ineffectual statement and unprecedented, that it is portrayed as a civil duty to which all should be in unison because Euthanasia is after all “Mercy Killing”. Right!? This case delves into the moral domain, within which it derives it’s relevance to the subject of Bioethics, Euthanasia is a popular subject that health care professionals, lawyers and theologians have dealt with for a long time. While it is an extreme and exceptional case to support and argue in favor of,

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.

Many people support the right of a terminally ill patient to die-but what if the right became an obligation? And what of the potential for abuse by impatient heirs?

As American citizens, we are protected by individual liberties and the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is simple; it is to ensure that the American citizens are guaranteed a substantial number of personal freedoms. What if a person’s dying wish was to die on his or her own terms? Dying on peoples own terms, seems like it would be a constitutional freedom, but sadly, it is not. Image a loved one, a friend, or a family member struck with immeasurable pain faced with a terminal and intolerable illness. This patient would have to go through agonizing pain to fight a battle they cannot win, for the disease has already won. When faced with pain and death, neither the government, nor doctors should have a say other than the patients themselves when choosing to end their life. The decision or ‘the Right To Die’ is solely for that person to make. The decision to end one’s life should be a personal freedom.