The Choice Of A Person 's Life

A controversial human rights issue in modern society is the right to die, an issue that has much to do with the way that human beings relate to society at large, the notion that a man has ownership of their own body, and the obligations set forth in the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics. Physician assisted suicide, or the right to die as those in the pro-assisted suicide movement call it, divides two very different kinds of people into two camps. One’s opinion on the subject is entirely related to one’s core values. Whether one values the individual or whether one places more emphasis on the will of the majority has a great impact on one’s beliefs concerning the issue of the right to die. In this essay, I will prove

In other words euthanasia is intentionally causing the death of a person to relieve them from suffering or pain and assisted suicide is helping the person kill him or herself. The main difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide is that in assisted suicide the patient is in complete control of the process that leads to death because he or she is the person who performs the act of suicide. The other person simply helps provide the means for carrying out the action. However, in euthanasia the patient is not causing his or her own death. I believe that the film, The Sea Inside, provides us with an example of assisted suicide. Ramon wanted it to be a case of euthanasia, but lost that battle when he took it to the courts. So he was left with no choice but to find the means to end his own life. With the help of his friends, he was able to get a hold of potassium cyanide and by drinking it he was able to take his own life.

Imagine a cancer patient on a short rode to death. The pain this patient is experiencing is unreal and unimaginable to most. The pain medicine that can be used does little to take the agony away. The doctors can put the patient in an induced coma, but what kind of living is that? It is not living. The patient does not want to go on. Is it so wrong to ask for a way out? With less than six months to live, the patient’s hope is gone. Many argue that euthanasia is not ethical, but is it really ethical to let someone live in constant, horrifying pain and agony? While in some cases having the right to die might result in patients giving up on life, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states for terminally ill patients with worsening or unbearable pain.

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

The process of assisted suicide, or physician-assisted death, is a hotly debated topic that still remains at the forefront of many national discussions today. Assisted suicide can be described as the suicide of patient by a physician-prescribed dose of legal drugs. The reason that this topic is so widely debated is that it infringes on several moral and religious values that many people in the United States have. But, regardless of the way that people feel, a person’s right to live is guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution, and this should extend to the right to end their own life as well. The reasons that assisted suicide should be legalized in all states is because it can ease not only the suffering of the individual, but the financial burden on the family that is supporting him/her. Regardless of opposing claims, assisted suicide should be an option for all terminally ill patients.

The decision to choose death over life should not be regulated by law, but rather be an individual’s afforded right. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all 50 states. Debates on legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have increased dramatically in recent years, however there has been little action taken on state and federal levels that encourage the reform of this social policy. The main reason for this hesitance lies in the question of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be regarded as morally acceptable. Many argue that legalizing PAS can bear lasting social effects, but surely the same can be true if our nation continues to deny an individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination.

Imagine sitting in the doctor’s office waiting to hear the results of a recent test that was done. The doctor comes into the room and breaks the news that you have a debilitating illness that will continue to progress quickly, eventually leaving you in a vegetative state. Knowing that there is no cure, and not many options for treatment, what would be the next step to consider? If you had the option to die, would you take it? Physician-assisted suicide remains a controversial topic in today’s society. With its political, social, and ethical issues, many questions arise on the topic of whether more states should legalize it or not. This paper will discuss the ethical, social, and political

Currently in America, terminally-ill patients in most states have only two options: receive treatments (some experimental) or wait for natural death. The third option on the other hand, exists in only five states. For dying patients in Montana, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California, they have the option for a physician assisted suicide (PAS). California recently passed the End of Life Option Act, thereby joining Oregon, Washington, and Vermont when it comes to legalizing PAS via legislation. For Montana, PAS is neither legal nor illegal according to a court decision. Judging by the fact that PAS is currently only practiced in five out of fifty states, it is clear that the issue of hastening the death of patients (by their own wishes) remains a hotly debated topic. This paper will proceed to analyze how each of the five states tackled the issues surrounding PAS.

In today’s society it is taught that life is a precious gift and to cherish every second that is allowed, but what if it is full of endless pain and misery? Starting hundreds of years ago in Ancient Greece up until modern times with Doctor Kevorkian, physician-assisted suicide, and euthanasia are all highly debated topics that cause both legal and moral dilemmas, but provide patients with benefits such as financial and pain relief. Assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States to prevent pain and suffering for the patients and their families.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), refers to self-administration of medication prescribed to a patient by their physician to end his or her life, and euthanasia, the administering of lethal drugs by a physician to end a patient’s life (Lachman, 2015) are extremely controversial topics. For several decades, supporters for the legalization of PAS and euthanasia have served as advocates for terminally ill patients who wish to have an alternative to a long, drawn out, painful death. These supporters have argued that death with dignity should be an option for these patients based on the ethical principles of autonomy and self- determination. With PAS being legal in several European countries as well as several US states, this provocative

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

The civil argument in the U.S. over whether or not to authorize physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia has reached new levels of vehemence. Oregon, California, Vermont, and Washington (and Montana, via court ruling) have become the first states to legalize physician-assisted suicide. There has, too, been campaigning, ballot measures, bills, and litigation in other states in attempts to legalize one or both practices. Supporters increasingly urge either absolute legalization or another form of legitimation, through claims of “mercy killing” when compared to homicide. As stated by representatives of the Ethics and Human Rights Committee, “Many people fear a painful and protracted death or desire more control over the dying process” (209).

With the advances in medicine, physicians have the ability to extend a patient’s life many years passed what was possible even a mere fifty years ago. However, the quality of life of those extended years has become a major topic of discussion. Many times the surviving years are miserable for the patient, as well as the family. Legalizing assisted suicide would benefit Medicare by bringing it out of huge debt. Also, it would relieve the pain of terminal patients and open a door of opportunity for patients on the transplant list waiting for an organ. Because of all humans eventually die, every person should have the right to live a pain-free life. Although some religions are opposed to it, assisted suicide should be legal in all of the United States to the terminally ill.

Many people have different opinions on the debate of legalizing Euthanasia or Physician- assisted suicide. “The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to the meaning, “(2) The major debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are: the slippery slope to legalized murder, the right to die, and the Hippocratic oath and prohibition of killing. “Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.” (1) I

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made