The Right to Die

Having the right to die is a very controversial and popular topic. It is so popular that it is even currently under debate. Having the right to die means that a terminally ill or chronically in pain patient would have the choice to medically end their life by way of medication or injection. Having the right to die can also mean choosing to be taken off machines that are keeping a person alive or it can mean being given a lethal concoction of medication in order to end a life. There are many different ways that right to die can be utilized. The basic procedures are simple in principle: Doctors certify that the patient qualifies under the law, by virtue of fulfilling the stated criteria then after appropriate waiting periods, the physician writes a prescription for life-ending chemicals. The laws do not specify how and when the patient should take the chemicals intended to bring immediate death, so that part of the process is left in the hands of the individuals(2007, January 1).

It is said that helping somebody who wants to die in a peaceful, painless way should be legal. Choosing how we die is a basic human freedom and if an individual's quality of life is deteriorating, due to a terminal disease such as cancer, they should have the right to stop their suffering via physician assisted suicide. It might be the case that the drugs for assisted suicide are far less expensive than the cost of their current medical care. This allows the government to save money as well as the lift the financial burden from the family of patients who are suffering from serious illness. Some people say that physician assisted suicide decreases the value of human life, but this isn't the case as it actually helps those who are terminal retain their dignity and choose their own death.

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

According to the Fourteenth Amendment of The Constitution of The United States, the State cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Indeed, a terminally ill patient has the Constitutional right to decide whether right or not to end his or her life. “Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that all persons have a moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they inflict no harm on others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one 's life when we choose” (A Right or a Wrong?). People have the right to die with dignity and in a humane way. If they feel like they have to do a certain thing, it is

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

Should terminally ill people be allowed to decide rather or not they want to live in constant pain and suffering? “Physician-assisted death is defined as the physician providing the means for death, most often with a prescription. The patient not the physician will ultimately administer the lethal medication” (Braddock & Tonelli, 1998) To better explain physician-assisted suicide, a situation in which a patient kills him-or herself, using means which have been supplied by the physician, with the physician being aware that the patient will use those means for the purposes of suicide. Physicians are trained to heal the sick, care for the injured, and cure diseases. However, medical school does not prepare them when they cannot cure

Physician-assisted suicide needs to be recognized by the federal government to show terminally ill patients that their right to autonomy is not being ignored. The Bill of Rights of Patients was constructed to outline just this. According to the American Cancer Society, “the American Hospital Association drafted a Patients’ Bill of Rights to inform patients of what they could reasonably expect while in the hospital.” One of the notes stated in the Bill of Rights of Patients is the right to autonomy. The right to autonomy specifically states that “patients have the right and ability to make their own choices and decisions about [the] medical care and treatment that they receive” (US Legal). If this right to autonomy is ignored what rights do terminally ill patients have? The answer is little to none. Physician-assisted suicide and the right to autonomy go hand in hand. The more knowledge that people have, the greater their ability to make educated and insightful decisions about the medical choices that are accessible to them and their families. Physician- assisted suicide should be like any other treatment someone can ask for, and the right to autonomy protects this doctor-patient agreement.

The right to die has been brought to the media and public spotlight through the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan, Cruzan v. Missouri, and Vacco v. Quill. This issue has been the topic of heated debate for years in the religious, scientific, and political community. This is because this topic ties into many communities and effects a large amount of people.

It’s one’s right to decide what happens to their body. Deciding one wants to end their life because they’re terminally ill and in pain should be permissible. It's no worse than a cancer patient refusing treatment, or a person being taken off life support. In fact, it might be better for people to be able to access physician assisted suicide as those suffering with chronic pain and no hope for a better future will be able to choose to die painlessly and with much more dignity. When the government refuses patient’s physician assisted suicide, people do at times decide to take matters into their own hands and attempt to end their own lives. This can go wrong and cause the patient to be in even more pain. This only includes those who are mobile enough to attempt suicide as well. The law against physician assisted suicide can also drive loved ones to end the patient’s suffering: so they no longer have to see them live in agony and misery. This causes many issues as the loved one may go to jail, or deal with psychological guilt for the rest of their lives. It seems better to allow people the ability to access physician assisted suicide as it’s no different than when one refuses treatment which is only prolonging

Humans are given the right to life which states that “nobody should be arbitrarily deprived of their life.” Imagine being given your lifespan at birth, and a person that does not personally know you or your family told you how to spend those years. This is essentially what the government is doing by withholding and criminalizing patients of the resources with which to end their lives. If people have the right to life, that right should also include the right to control their quality of life; the right to life should not entail the life that has been chosen for the individual, but rather the life that the individual choses. Over 91 percent of patients said that losing autonomy was the reason that they chose physician assisted suicide, and 71 percent said that they wanted to die with dignity. The desire to increase autonomy among terminally ill individuals is one that is shared by Dr. Timothy Quill M.D., a palliative care specialist from the University of Rochester Medical Center: “Patients with serious illness wish to have control over their own bodies, their own lives, and concern about future physical and psychosocial distress. Some view potential access to physician-assisted death as the best option to address these concerns.” If we aim to promote freedom and autonomy of oneself, why then, should we deny people the right to choose when, and on what terms, they die? Supreme Court Justice William Brennan states that: "An ignoble end steeped in decay is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme

In 1776, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence, guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This brings up the question, if you have the right to life, do you have the right to death? After all, it is your life and no one else’s, right? This is the question at the very center of the controversial debate on the legalization of physician assisted suicide in the United States. Anti-physician assisted suicide groups often argue that no individual truly wants to end their life. However, that statement does not ring true to those who would actually utilize physician assisted suicide- terminally ill patients. Imagine being diagnosed with a terminal disease, followed by months and sometimes years of treatment that brings insufferable side effects due to countless medicines, drugs and surgeries only to be told that you have a minimal chance of survival and will have to undergo treatment for the rest of your life. This is the bleak reality for many who are terminally ill. A compassionate individual would conclude that it is not fair for patients to be forced to live this kind of life or lack thereof, if they do not wish to do so. Physician assisted suicide should be a legal option to competent, terminally ill patients in the United States in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital costs on their loved ones and families and to preserve the individual right of people to determine their

In the United States, we have certain human rights and that includes the right to choose to end our lives. Under article 3 in the Declaration of Human Rights, it states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person” (Appendix). Given this law, a patient has all the rights to decide if they want to live or die. According to Dworkin, “The individual has a basic right to determine the course of their own life and obviously death is a part of that course” (Bell). A fellow New Yorker also said, “Whatever view we take about, we want the right to decide for ourselves.” To sum up, it’s very important to allow us to make our own decisions.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and served an eight year prison sentence. (Fridstein. 1). This accomplished physician graduated from the University of Michigan with an impressively high IQ. He was a writer, inventor, movie producer and classical composer. (Kevorkian). Why would a man so intelligent and successful end up in jail for murder? Well believe or not he purposely challenged the legal system in a one man crusade to ignite a national discussion on the subjects of assisted suicide, Euthanasia and one’s constitutional right to choose. Euthanasia is a medical procedure that involves a person being induced with a soothing, relaxing medicine that allows them a peaceful passing. Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, summed it up best when he said, "We’re just talking about the right not of children and not of mentally incompetent people but the right of mentally competent adults to make decisions about their own bodies as to how much suffering they have to undergo.” (Kevorkian). Euthanasia is not for people experiencing temporary illness or unhappiness. It’s for people who are imprisoned by their own unbearable physical pain for the rest of their lives with no way out. Is it fair to not give those people a choice? Is it fair to make them slowly deteriorate while losing their dignity? I think not. That is why I support euthanasia being legalized, “Dying is not a crime.” (Fridstein. 1).

“Autonomy is the right of a person to control his or her own body and life decisions” (Manning 26). This is absolutely correct. Governments, groups, and various people can argue against autonomy forever. The simple fact is we have control over ourselves, whether people like it or not. It gives us an added responsibility to thoroughly think about what it is we do with our bodies. These are decisions for the individual. Many of us go through life trying to control everything that happens around us and, at times, situations that do not involve us. The one thing we can control is ourselves. Everyone passes judgment and often overlooks what is within. Nobody takes euthanasia more seriously than those considering it. The choice is not a split decision. This is something people deeply meditate upon before going through

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and