The Individual's Right to Suicide
In this article I hope to demonstrate the individual’s right to suicide. I will argue that a person’s freedom gives them the right to commit suicide, and by refuting religion and defeating the opposing views I hope to validate my conclusion. I also hope to address the reader with enough information as to not leave any room for “gray areas” in the final analysis. In the western world, suicide is taboo. While it would be easy to attribute this to Christianity, it is more accurate to attribute it the human fear and denial of death. The religions of the world create coping factors for dealing with the idea of death. The result is that in cultures where the major faith accepts and/or celebrates
…show more content…
The reasoning for this is that the impact of suicide is like the impact of the person dieing in a car crash or, more closely psychologically, murdered. These are both forms of death involving extra-ordinary means, as are all forms of death except natural causes. Suicide is merely another of the many forms of extra-ordinary death that exist. As such, those committing suicide need not feel any guiltier for that act as they would for the harm that would be caused by them being murdered or dieing in a car accident. The opposition may say that this is not a fully adequate response because these extra-ordinary forms of death do not account for all of the death that occurs, and thus there is a chance that a person committing suicide may actually die of natural causes. However, this charge can in fact be defeated. If a person continues living they are taking a chance of causing less pain or even possibly more pain from their deaths at a later date. This leaves life as a gamble, with suicide being the only real choice you can make in the matter. As to the argument for suicide being unnatural and therefore wrong, I feel that I refuted it earlier when I showed that death by any means
Assisted suicide is a controversial topic, with surprisingly realistic and convincing arguments from each side. The opposing side of the argument inflicts moral responsibility in anyone researching the topic. The supporters of assisted suicide impose a common argument, “my body, my choice.”.
prescribe drugs to terminally ill patients who request to end their lives. Attorney General John
The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if
Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.
You’re visiting the hospice for the twenty-third day in a row; the soft squeaking of the linoleum and the gentle buzz of the fluorescents in the waiting room greet you as you walk in. You’re visiting your Grandmother, whose lung cancer has entered metastasis, and has been slowly spreading throughout her body; she has already lost movement in her arms. She is a hollow shell of the woman she once was; her once bright eyes have been fading steadily every day, and her bubbly demeanor has become crushed and gravelly, and every day before you leave, she will only say, “Kill me.” What would you do in this situation? Would you break the law in order to respect your elder’s wishes? It is a cruel reality we live in when ability to choose the time
Suicide is not considered a crime but assisted or encouraged suicide is a crime is under the suicide act of 1961. Assisted suicide would violate this act that was enacted in 1961. It is argued that the suicide act is decades old, this still doesn’t define the fact that it should be changed. It has provided a stable law that we are under and required to follow because it is the best for us. Take the civil rights of 1964 for an example where discrimination was outlawed. Should it be modified in any way restricting certain gender, race, or religion from employment? It was an act that was enacted for the best of our society. Additionally, like the civil rights act the suicide act should not be modified in any way if it is what's best. It's been
There are some arguments for assisted suicide and ?Respect for autonomy is one of them. A competent person should have the right to choose to live or die. Justice is another. Competent terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten their deaths by refusal of medication. Physician assisted suicide may be a compassionate response to unbearable sufferings. Although society has a strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when a person is terminally ill and has a strong desire to end life. Lastly, legalization of assisted suicide would promote open discussion. ? These arguments make it hard to go along with the arguments against assisted suicide.
Although a patient’s choice of suicide symbolizes an expression of self-determination, there is a great distinction between denying life-sustaining treatments and demanding life-ending treatments. The right to self-determination is a right to allow or reject offered treatments, not to choose what should be offered. The right to refuse life-sustaining interventions does not correlate with a right to force others to hasten their death. The inability of physicians to inhibit death does not mean that physicians are allowed to help induce death.
The argument by those who are against using the term suicide believe that in contrast to those patients with impaired judgment, patients who are terminally ill and request medication under the act possess the ability to make a reasonable, autonomous decision to terminate their lives (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). Therefore a person’s mental capacity or judgment has not been affected and they are deemed suitable to make this decision (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). Proving that a person is capable of making this decision on their own without any outside help is most critical part of this whole entire process (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). .
Assisted suicide brings a debate that involves professional, legal and ethical issues about the value of the liberty versus the value of life. However, before conceive an opinion about this topic is necessary know deeply its concept. Assisted suicide is known as the act of ending with the life of a terminal illness patients for end with their insupportable pain. Unlike euthanasia, the decision is not made by the doctor and their families, but by the patient. Therefore, doctors should be able to assist the suicide of their patients without being accused of committing a criminal offense. This conception is supported by three points of view. The first point defenses the autonomy of people, which covers the right of people to make decision
Whatever a religion may offer as it's belief about suicide, the followers of that religion do not always uphold that belief. At Masada, for example, a sect of fervently religious Jews known as Zealots held off Roman invaders for two years. When it became apparent that defeat was inevitable, their leader convinced the remaining nine hundred and sixty of them to commit suicide (Flanders 5). And Michel de Montaigne, a Christian writer living in France in the mid sixteenth century wrote five essays arguing that suicide is a matter of personal choice, and it is a viable option under some circumstances (OCRT 1).
For the purposes of this essay the assumption will be that there is no after life or god. Eliminating the concept of god in a sense dissolves the issue of sinfulness and blameworthiness. Therefore a relativist stance will be adopted and the absolutist stance rejected. The issue of cowardice also should be addressed as arguably a soldier going to certain death is not a coward and few people would be able to harm him/herself. The taking of life can be considered under three categories, as an exercise in rational philosophical thought, as an action that has boundaries proscribed by the law, and lastly in a theological sense. It also is worthwhile and imperative to allude to the fact that suicide is only one form of extinguishing life, and
In a 2014 article done by Health Research Funding they stated that, “According to research, some 66% of U.S. adults believe that a doctor or nurse should allow a patient to die in certain circumstances” (25 Surprising Physician Assisted Suicide Statistics, 2014). Physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia should not just be a matter of law but as well as free will. In this essay, I am using a virtue approach to contend that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal. Is it moral to allow people to end their lives suffering? It helps people, saves money and useless drugs and treatment that does not work it being wasted. It ends suffering without the stigma of suicide and it allows the person to make peace and go on their own terms when they want to, so there is not a shock or surprise. You can say goodbye and end it when you are ready.
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.
If you bring up the subject of suicide in a room of people, it is likely that the individuals will become quite, begin to become uncomfortable. Why is this? Is it because of the aspect of death? Is it the ways it is done? Society may say it is a wrong and selfish act, or that a person is not considering others and therefore it is erroneous. We live in a society where mental health problems are rampant, societal issues take over our daily lives and out everyday stresses impact our health, yet our understanding of the subject that is to be avoided and carries a stigma with it that affects the way people see those who have attempted or completed suicide. When deciding if suicide is an ethical or morally accepted action, we must take many factors into consideration. Some of these factors may include the culture and society in which we live and our knowledge of psychological and biological causes. With these factors in mind, we can then adopt our own personal philosophies on whether suicide is an ethical or moral act. While not all individuals are going to agree on a consensus, it is important to consider others opinions and be aware of them while discussing the subject, even if it is uncomfortable.