Case Study: The Right To Die Law

The political action committee, Oregon Right to Die, which originally proposed Measure 16, or the Oregon Death with Dignity Act was formed by businessman Elven Sinnard, Eli Stutsman, Mark Trinchero, Dr. Peter Goodwin, MD, Myriam Coppens in 1993. The purpose of the PAC is to simply “legalize physician-assisted suicide” (Purvis). With the formation of this PAC various stakeholders were brought together to review drafts of the death with dignity bill that would be placed on the ballot the following year. The political action committee, Oregon right to Die marketed Measure 16 by appealing to Oregon citizens’ “individual self-determination, desire for choice, and patient autonomy at the time of death” (Purvis). Dr. Peter Goodwin emphasized that

Many consider suicide primarily because they are convinced they are burdens on their families and society. Therefore, if assisting suicide for those with terminal illness is legalizied , the so called right to die is very likely in practice to become a “duty to die”. Many consider the law to be the teacher of what is right and proper, and such a codification would be manipulated by the healthcare industry, and by those who regard life as worthless

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

The Right to Die Act, also known as the “Death with Dignity Act” is meant to implement the option of enhanced “End of life care.” The Right to Die Act is an optional law that grants a patient with an incurable illness to quicken one's “Inevitable and unavoidable death.”(deathwithdignity.org). The conception that a patient with an inevitable illness “Should be allowed to commit suicide before death occurs.” What “Right to Die” stated is inaccurate because the official

The ethical dilemma of this highly controversial subject will continue to split our approach to the notion of assisted suicide. As we age, we come to terms with our own mortality, how we choose to leave this world isn’t always up us. For those who suffer from a terminal fate, maybe they should have the choice, and those who understand their current condition can provide them the dignity they deserve without repercussions. The only way we as a society can move ahead, is to find a common

In recent times, there has been much debate about whether or not Euthanasia should be permitted. Voluntary Euthanasia is when terminally ill people wish to have their lives ended with the assistance of medical procedures before nature takes its course. This is because they may be suffering and in great pain, or cannot live a reasonable or comfortable life. Voluntary Euthanasia should be introduced, provided that there are safeguards to stop the system from being misused.

First, Connecticut pro-choice supporters attempted to legalize the Death with Dignity Act three times since 2013, as they believe competent, terminally ill individuals in Connecticut should have the legal right to choose medically assisted death. Unfortunately, this legislation has not come to a vote in Connecticut; however, each time more people are supportive of the bill. The last Quinnipiac University Poll, completed in March 2015, has shown that by more than a 2-1 margin (63% vs. 31%), Connecticut voters support “allowing doctors to legally prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives” (C&C, Oregon, 2016). The “Death with Dignity Act” originated in Oregon, in 1997 with enough support to be the first state to pass the new law. Washington passed a similar law eleven years later, in 2008. Additionally, Colorado has been the most recent state to have this law passed on November 8, 2016. All the states have modeled after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. Specifically, the law states that the person must be terminally ill with less than six months to live, also be at least eighteen

Only a small minority of people will ever experience illnesses that fall under the category of eligibility for assisted suicide. This is good, because these illnesses rob people of their lives and leave them in great suffering and without self-determinism or control over their state of being. The truth is most people will be able to go through life without ever having to deal with symptoms such as abscesses in the lungs, paralysis of the vocal cords, or internal hemorrhages. But it very well could have been or will eventually be any one of us afflicted with a terminal disease. Therefore, we should protect the rights of individuals afflicted by these disorders.

Today, assisted suicide also known as the Death with Dignity Act has become legal in nearly four U.S. States, the act has legalized the ability for terminally ill patients to determine the time of their death. Since the act becoming legal the amount of patients that participated in it grew 65 percent. The act does come with it’s flaws, but it does ensure major things such as; patients can put an end to pain and suffering when they no longer have hope to of recovering, they can arrange for final good-byes with loved ones, and the act prevents in humane suicides.

and are in a great deal of pain and distress with no real quality of

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

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

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). .

The debate on legalizing assisted suicide is an issue across the globe. It has brought countries to contemplate on the legalities of the matter in their respective legislative branches of government. Assisted suicide is just simply a matter of assessing one's will to perform such act with the permission of the subject or the patient in such way his will be done. The debate now focuses on either the act shall be legalized or not.