Should The Right Die Be Considered A Right?

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

The Universal Determination of Death Act provides a comprehensive base for determining death in all situations. In 1979, the American Medical Association created the Model Determination of Death statute due to modern advances in lifesaving technology. A person may be artificially supported for respiration and circulation after all brain functions come to an end. The medical profession, has developed techniques for determining loss of brain functions while cardiorespiratory support is administered. The definition of death can’t assure recognition of these techniques, and can be demonstrated by the absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions.

Another argument against the right to die is the fact that a specific illness does not define a human. There is more to mankind than simply what is wrong with them. An example of this is a sufferer of AIDS. The disease itself does not mean the sufferer is a deviant. The morality of the person is not defined by a disease they live with. Illness is not what makes a person who they are, character does that. Therefore it cannot be inferred about what will happen with their life. This is why it would be wrong for anyone to kill themselves for the sake of an illness. Simply, the reason for homicide due to illness is unjustified (Arkes). For a person to use a patient’s illness as a reason to die solely based on the illness, it does a disservice to

What is biopower? In a book ostensibly devoted to the history of sexuality, La volontØ du savoir, published in 1976, Michel Foucault included six highly provocative pages on this theme in a chapter entitled Right of Death and Power over Life. For a long time, he argued, one of the privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death, a right that, by the classical age, had been constrained to occasions when the sovereign himself was threatened from enemies without and within. This was the juridical form of sovereign power the right of a ruler to seize things, time, bodies, ultimately the life of subjects. It was the model of power that was codified and generalized in classical political philosophy a model that remained

“A person has the constitutional right to request the withdrawal or withholding of a medical treatment, even if doing so will result in the person’s death” (Assisted Suicide). So why is there not, and should there not be a right in some states and countries for those who are near death and know they will die to want to end their life.

Today there are five to ten thousand comatose patients in long term care facilities (Wheeler A1). There are countless elderly people in care facilities that have repeatedly expressed a desire to die. There are countless terminally ill patients that have also begged for death. Should these people be allowed to die, or should they be forced to keep on living? This question has plagued ethicists and physicians throughout the years.

Beyond the argument of the right to die and honouring life lies man’s explicit and fundamental right to choose. Because we are human, we have the right to live our lives and determine our own course. This explicit right touches on everything from what you you will do when you wake up in the morning, to your actions and beliefs. The modern society that we lvie in is based on this very right, and evolves because our inherent nature is explored. Naturally, this same self-determing capacity by the nature of humans gives us the right to choose how we die.

I actually have prior knowledge of this controversial issue thanks to my government class last year in senior year. In fact, we watched the same documentary and had to write a response paper as well. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find my paper to compare it with my current perspective. My opinion on this matter is I support assisted death. Thus, placing me on the liberal side. My main reason behind my answer is that the right to choose includes the right to choose to die. People should respect that. No one should be forced to prolong their suffering when they have to ability to stop it. No one should make decisions for others. Stop butting into people’s business. One of the interviews in the documentary had the wife, Sue Celmer, of a recently hospitalized cancer patient who took his life said: “It is not God’s will that we take other people’s lives nor our own lives. Who are you to think that you have the ability to do that?” That statement just triggered me, especially the second sentence. My reaction after that was: “Bitch, who are you to decide what my

“Many people who are terminally ill decide to die with dignity and avoid the suffering for them, and their family.” Isaias Lozano. When you read this, you suddenly question yourself, would you do it or would you not? Considering this, Id probably be part of that percentage of the population that if it comes to that point would like to end it.

Here in the United States, the discussion of euthanasia and the right to die tends to be a controversial one. The word euthanasia means “good death” in Greek, and in essence that’s what it is. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately and painlessly ending a terminally ill or suffering patient’s life through physician assisted suicide. The right-to-die is a movement that believes a person should have the right to euthanasia and physician assisted-suicide.

1) Yes based on the state one lives in but it is not a constitutional right. There are laws such as Death with Dignity and End of Life Option that give one that is terminally ill the right to die. These laws allow a terminally ill person to obtain a legal dose of drugs from their doctors. (Death with Dignity). This law has just been passed in Colorado in the past election and will begin December 2016.

I am going to answer these two questions in this essay. They are “Do you think that the right to life entails a right to die under certain circumstances?” and “Should the laws be changed to grant a universal right to voluntary euthanasia?”. In this essay, I am going to give reasons using ethical theories to justify these questions.

The word Euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means "good" and thanatos means "death". Euthanasia (Greek, "good death") is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering. However, some people define euthanasia to include both voluntary and involuntary termination of life (Humphy 12). Like so many moral/ethical/religious terms, "euthanasia" has many meanings. Euthanasia, in the strict sense, involves actively causing death. This is, in some cases, legal like in the Netherlands, but in few other countries. Euthanasia, in a wider sense, includes assisting someone to commit suicide, in

To begin with, in the United States, Americans are meant to believe they have the freedom to do what they want, so why can the adult citizens not be able to choose the right to die? For many of the citizens it is hard to see a family member or friend die in a slow, painful way. There are many stories about patients that slowly die and possibly one of the most famous story is about Karen Ann Quinlan. Karen was only twenty-two when she was in a coma. On April 15, 1975 she was out at a party, and after drinking alcohol and possibly taking tranquilizers, she was found without a pulse. She was taken to a hospital in New Jersey where she was hooked up to a respirator. Her conditions quickly declined and within a few days, she curled up and was considered to be in a PVS (Persistent Vegetative State). After a month had passed, there were no signs of recovery and her family asked to have Karen disconnected from the respirator. The hospital refused this because Karen was not conscious to make a decision for herself and her parents could not do it on her behalf. Karen’s parents took their case to court. The New Jersey Supreme Court told the hospital that Karen was to be

Comas are a very widely known (illness). They can last from several days to weeks, in more severe cases it can last for months and even years. Unfortunately, many don’t learn of the full extent until a loved one is affected. For the families of those affected by the many different types of comas, it is important to know what it is and to understand how it works. Comas are a diverse