The Right to Assisted Suicide Essay

We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved.  We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive?  For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.   Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their

Assisted suicide is a topic that has ignited a severe debate due to the controversy that surrounds its implementation. Assisted suicide occurs when a patients expresses their intention to die and request a physician to assist them in the process. Some countries like Oregon, Canada, and Belgium have legalized the process terming it as an alternative to prolonged suffering for patients who are bound to die. Unlike euthanasia where a physician administers the process, assisted suicide requires that the patient voluntarily initiates and executes the process. Although there exists concession such a process is important to assist patients die without much suffering, there has emerged criticism on its risk of abuse and as an expression of medical

prescribe drugs to terminally ill patients who request to end their lives. Attorney General John

Brittany Maynard, a woman known for her advocacy in the controversial topic of assisted suicide, officially ended her life this fall after learning of her fatal brain tumor. After complaining of horrible headaches, she decided to see a doctor where they gave her this traumatic news. She had two corrective surgeries to try and stop the growth of her large tumor, but they were unsuccessful. Her doctor then suggested full brain radiation, but after months of researching this option, along with many other, she knew her quality of what short life she had left would quickly deteriorate. With the help of her family, friends, and newly-wed husband, she made the decision to move with her loved ones from her California home to Oregon, where death with

   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)?

In an article describing the end of patient’s lives and what physician-assisted suicide would mean to patients, the writers stated that “[p]atients nearing the end of life want control over their bodies and their lives as a ‘small measure of self preservation,’ they noted” (Alexi, Block Wright). The knowledge that you hold and control your life and everything it stands for in the palm of your hands is a goal that everyone seeks in some point in their lives. For instance, many consider control over one’s death a sign of self-fulfillment and the ultimate happiness. Physician-assisted suicide would give terminally ill patients, people whose bodies are giving out on them, a chance to reach contentment and peace. Furthermore, the lethal dose that ends the patient’s life symbolizes the start of a happier era in which their troubles end with them. Also, the ability to pursue happiness as long as it is not impeding on anyone else’s life is a right that comes with citizenship in the U.S. Another article that illustrates the right to physician-assisted suicide states that “[as] medical science progresses and new methods become available for keeping people alive longer, a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment should be protected” (DiLascio, Pawlick). DiLascio and Pawlick are stating that patients should have the right to physician-assisted

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.

In 1994, Oregon became the first state to pass a bill legalizing physician aid-in-dying (Richardson, 2011). This law would allow a terminally ill patient with 6 months or less to live to end their life by their own terms (“It’s Not Assisted Suicide”, 2011). This bill leads to the question “Why would a form of purposeful death be legalized?” The bill, itself was passed for many reasons including the fact that the patients want to have control over their life and ultimately their death (“It’s Not Assisted Suicide”, 2011). They also do not want to live in fear of what will eventually happen to them. “Death with Dignity” was passed is because many terminally-ill patients do not want to live in excruciating pain and in fear of what will happen to them, living a prolonged life or taking control over one’s death is a personal choice belonging only to the individual making it.

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

On New Year’s day in 2014, 29-year-old newly wed and hopeful mother , Brittany Maynard, was diagnosed with a malignant stage four brain tumor and was given six months to live. After two failed surgeries and full brain radiation, Maynard made the decision to die on her own terms. She and her family moved to Oregon and established residency so that she could utilize Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act. Maynard chose to end her life on November 1, 2014. Before her death, Maynard asked her friends and family: “Who has the right to tell me that I don't deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?” This same question

On March 31, 2005 Terri Schiavo died by means of euthanasia. Terri Schiavo was a 26 year old woman living in Florida when she collapsed in her home and lost oxygen to her brain for several minutes placing her in a coma (Lynn). When she came out of her coma, she was still unconscious. Terri’s feeding tube was removed causing her to get a lack of foods and fluids. Some people say that giving her fluids and food only artificially prolonged her life and might have been causing her pain and suffering (“Euthanasia Expert”). But this only occurs when a human’s body is shutting down because their body can’t benefit from the fluids and foods (“Euthanasia Expert”). Terri’s husband Michael Schiavo used her disability to gain millions of dollars for what

Assisted Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. There are many ethical dilemmas surrounding assisted suicide. Although there is no way to truly say whether assisted suicide is a good or bad thing. I can say that it would be ethically wrong to legalize it. How, it can open the floodgates for anyone to medically end their life, we are not meant to “pay God”, and it can jeopardize the ethical and moral duties of healthcare professionals. When someone thinks of the word “suicide” most think of a person killing him or herself to escape their problems, except assisted suicide isn’t quite the same. According to Batten “Assisted suicide is the means by which an individual choose to end his or her life via the help of another person, who may offer medical assistance” (Batten 398). Death isn’t something a health care professional should be allowed to assist with but rather guide the patient back to a healthier state.

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.

     Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, assisted suicide is not a right, and it remains illegal in most states. Oregon, Washington and Montana do permit it, however, and even though their laws in the courts for many years, in the end the Supreme Court did not forbid the states from passing such laws altogether. Many states already allow patients to refuse treatment in these situations, to die without having to endure extraordinary lifesaving measures, and to withhold food and water from comatose and brain dead patients. State courts have also ruled that parents cannot collect damages for the birth of a normal, healthy child, even as the result of medical malpractice through defective sterilization and contraception procedures or failure to carry out correct genetic testing or fully inform parents of the results. Nor have the courts ruled that the birth of a handicapped child is a life unworthy of living, and instead have argued for judicial restraint in making such legal and moral determinations. Even in the case of the severely handicapped, such as children with Down syndrome, American courts have not ruled that nonexistence would be preferable to living a limited life. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that parents can collect personal injury damages as the result the birth of an impaired or unplanned child, at least in the recovery of medical costs if not all the expenses of rearing the child to adulthood. A related issue is that the U.S.