The Pros And Cons Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

Humans should not be forced to live against their will when they are suffering from an incurable illness that will lead to an undignified or painful death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a person is close to the end with no hope for a cure. It should be their legal right to choose to end their life in a humane way, instead of waiting for death knowing that it’s not going to be peaceful. It’s common practice to put an animal down to end its suffering, yet that same kindness is being denied to human beings who would choose it for themselves.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1 states humans are equal in dignity and rights. Article 5 mentions that no one shall be tortured or receive cruel, inhuman treatment. Article 5 is information for those opposing the legalization of physician-suicide assistance. Opposing people argue is a torture and inhuman treatment for those willing to die peacefully from a terminal illness to choose assisted suicide. The resource was constructed from countries around the world.

Death is not a topic that many people are comfortable with, some people believe it is outrageous for others to play God and decide when to end their lives. While this is true for people with normal pains, there are those who feel they have the right to choose their own fate because they cannot bear their pain and suffering anymore. These are people that are terminally ill, people who were diagnosed with a deadly disease without a cure and feel that death is the only way to relieve that pain. These people has gone through many treatments that are slowly becoming less and less effective. Even though the treatment isn’t working, the patients still have to live through the pain from the treatments. Terminally ill

Others argue that each person is responsible for making their own decisions or taking their own actions, so who are we to keep them from doing what they please? Many people with terminal illnesses even people without these illnesses don’t understand what it is that they are going through and go into isolation and a mixture of emotions. Therefore, how is a person in this state of mind so sure that they are making the right decision? In some circumstances, terminally ill patients could end up fully recovering and getting well. Every doctor knows that medicine is an art as well as a science. Some people might argue and say that it is rare for someone who is terminally ill to recover. Although it is rare, some terminally ill people can and do get better, and medical breakthroughs for cures seem to be constantly in the works. For example, Stephen Hawking suffers from a rare form of ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) in which the life expectancy is only two to five years after diagnosis and he has lived with this disease for over 40 years. The thought or request for suicide is usually a call for help. In reality suicidal individuals don’t want to actually die; they just want an escape from their pain and suffering. If this is the case, any patient going through pain and

A personal experience of mine was this past year, when a close family member was diagnosed with brain cancer. She had refused treatment, with that was given 6-8 months to live. She was the most strongest, independent, family oriented lady I have ever met, however, that quickly changed when the tumour spread like rapid fire. She could not eat on her own, she could not talk, and she could not do the basic everyday routine, needing constant help. As the days went on she was getting worse, she was not herself. Now, we are left with these memories and the sadness of witnessing a strong independent lady just disappear in front of us. For a terminally ill patient with the knowledge of dying with dignity should be given this choice. As learnt in class it is based on the rights approach, giving the individual the right to choose for him or herself. The right to choose to die before the illness takes over and takes away who the person really was. Their right to leave their family with happy memories, instead of sad memories of them being sick and in

Furthermore, the right to die, according to the book, Euthanasia, by Linda Jackson, is considered a basic human right. Medical professionals have claimed to have had their patients not wish to undergo the heaviness of sedation. Today, relationships between doctors and their patients have appeared to be more equal, instead of just relying on the doctor, when it comes to making decisions about the patient’s health (Jackson 30). Given these points, allowing euthanasia to terminally ill patients would give them the chance to choose to end their distress, which therefore allows the right to die and the right to decide which type of treatment the patient would receive.

People make decisions every single day of their lives. Although, people with a terminal diagnosis still have the capability to make decisions, they are not given the legal right to a physician assisted suicide. A choice some may desire in their final days. Once the person with the terminal diagnosis has met the specific criteria he or she should decide what would be optimal decision for both themselves and their families. Palliative care will always be available to terminal patients; however, not all patients will wish to wait and wonder. Nevertheless, some terminal patients will wish to take death into their own hands. People should be allowed to choose how they will die this would reduce the overall healthcare cost, decrease the emotional toll of the patients and their families, and allow there to be dignity within death.

Roughly 600 years ago, Columbus came and “discovered” America although there were people currently living there. Europeans soon claimed the land as theirs and called themselves Americans. Today, although people have made a living in the United States, they are being sent back because of their race and where they came from. The ban of people from the Middle East entering the United States took the world by shock although Donald Trump has talked about it before his presidency. Many people believed that he was not going to be able to do it since it violates the United States Constitution. It also infringes with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and managed to still get away with it.

As ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill says, “The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty...In particular, this Court’s recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death.” This explains that a terminally ill and mentally stable person has the right to decide on bringing upon his or her death. In addition, Faye Girsh, Senior Advisor of Final Exit Network says, “At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality… Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights-the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent.” This statement shows keeping a terminally ill patient alive, forcing them to suffer before death, which they will eventually die soon enough, is a cruel

Should a person have the right to die when facing a terminal illness? Imagine that a loved one has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness. What is the first thing people think of? How much time do they have left and is there any way to extend that time? That is a normal reaction because we want as much time with our loved ones as possible. Now, put yourself in that same situation is that what you would want if it were you facing a terminal illness? A person should have the right to refuse treatment and or receive life ending chemical assistance when facing a terminal illness, because some terminal illness can greatly reduce quality of life, second a person has the right to choose their own health care and finally a person should have the right

A patient with terminally ill disease being in critical stage may be suffering from immense about of pain each day of their life. They have the right to request euthanasia that completely ends that suffering. Euthanasia is the painless killing of an patient with incurable disease or painfully disease. In an article by Vinod Sinha, he explains what euthanasia is used for and how exactly it works. He states, "the intent is to end the patient’s life, while in the administration of pain medications that may also hasten death; the intent is to relieve suffering." The intent of those medication is to help relive patient's suffering which is what the patient desires. The pain each day the patient suffers from helps motivate him or her to accept the option to proceed with assisted suicide or euthanasia. Because euthanasia is painless, patients would prefer to die painlessly rather than dying painfully due to their terminal disease. And as basic human rights, the patient has the right to request a painless death to relive the suffering and

It isn’t right to keep a person, or more importantly a loved one alive, if they are suffering! So, you should really start to think about a better way for your family or the people of the world to be able to die if they have been told there is no longer any hope for them to get better. People who have terminal diseases like cancer, kidney disease, or other incurable sickness should have the right to die by euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as the “right to die” by either a doctor or a lethal prescription. Some even call this an assisted suicide. The three arguments I have with this topic is: Keeping a person you love kept alive longer if they are suffering so badly is cruel. The next one is, keeping a person who has no hope

The choice to die lies in the hands of the terminally ill, because it is, after all, their life and body. Michael Irwin, MPH, MD, former Medical Director at the United Nations and current Coordinator of the Society for Old Age Rational Suicide (SOARS) says "The right to die should be a matter of personal choice. We are able to choose all kinds of things in life from who we marry to what kind of work we do and I think when one comes to the end of one's life, whether you have a terminal illness or whether you're elderly, you should have a choice about what happens to you... ". People have choices when it comes to their own babies and dogs, why not their very own lives? If a dog is diagnosed with cancer that cannot be cured and is in pain and suffering, the owner of that dog has the right to decide whether to “put it down” or not. If a person is terminally ill, and as the owner of their own life, shouldn’t they have the right to choose to be “put down” as well? It isn’t right that they have the right to decide the lives of living things other than themselves yet the decision deciding the fate of their own lives is supposedly inhumane.

Being terminally ill is like being a grenade. When having an illness like this you feel that you have to cut everyone off so you don't hurt the ones you love. Either way, the person who is terminally ill knows they are going to die so why not give them a choice to go when they know it's right rather than them going at a random time during the time frame they were given. “I'm a grenade and at some point I'm going to blow up and I would like to minimize the casualties, okay?”, From this quote it not only shows how one feels when they are ill but also shows that they are unsure when they are going to go, Point two on why Euthanasia should be made legal across the country.

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands as the current gold standard for every individual’s rights. Focusing on culture, one may see that cultural rights are not clearly defined and are oftentimes in conflict with other types of rights. In this paper, I will first discuss the United Nations’ use of ‘cultural’ in its universal human rights in relation to the concept of cultural relativism. Then, using South African and American practices, such as virginity testing and discriminatory criminal justice system respectively, I will describe and analyze practices violate the UN’s universal human rights in addition to the practices’ use for the community or society as a whole. Lastly, I will compare the American Anthropological Association’s rights to culture to the UN’s universal human rights by analyzing the limitations of each.