Persuasive Essay On The Right To Die

Some individuals with terminal illnesses find solace in knowing that they can exert some power over their illnesses and choose how they want to die. Just as any individual has the legal right to plan out their healthcare wishes and ensure that their end-of-life concerns are taken care of, terminally ill patients should also have the right to have the choice to want to die naturally or end their lives. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide can give the dying individual comfort in knowing that they have options. Physicians presently are allowed to relieve the dying of their pain and suffering by administering lethal doses of pain medications. Terminally ill patients should be able to access lethal doses of medicine voluntarily through their physician to allow them the choice of death. Strong morals and ethics surrounding this issue have split society on whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of a terminal illness can create feelings of uncertainty, fear and helplessness and therefore, physician-assisted suicide laws should be passed nationwide to be able to give those who are dying of

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.

The right to die has been a topic of many debates. People are either strongly opposed to the act, saying things like “In no situation is suicide the right thing to do,” while others argue the exact opposite. No compromises are made as an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, but this is life or death. The answer cannot be as simple as yes or no. We all go through difficulties in our lives, some even struggle with depression at times, but unlike those who are depressed or going through a rough patch, there are those who are doomed to deal with physical pain the rest of their lives. How could we deprive them the choice of a painless death, when letting them die slowly on a hospital bed is the only other option? Physician assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill should be legalized in America, because physician assisted suicide saves those who are hurting from living the rest of their lives in agony.

A terminal disease diagnosis changes the outlook on life, leaving the choice of either living life to an inevitably painful death or ending the suffering by seeking a different medical option. A person who is terminally ill requires rigorous treatments to slow down the process of death, but there is an alternative option. Physician-assisted suicide continues to gain attention and is being legalized across the world. The process in the United States is slower, yet a few states have already authorized it. People undermine this option for unethical reasons; however, it enables a person in agonizing pain to end their life before becoming entirely incompetent. Doctors across the nation seek this practice in order to help the patients as well as their families; even though, they could be risking their license. Despite moral values contradicting this practice, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States for terminally ill patients lucid enough to make the decision on their own.

Imagine being diagnosed with an incurable disease and told that you have less than six months to live. For the past few decades the united states has been debating whether physician assisted death should be legalized or remain illegal. Assisted deaths are legal in the states of Oregon, washington, vermont, california, and montana but remains illegal in 37 states. Would you want to be given the option or take on a natural death? Ultimately, assisted suicide is gaining importance in our society today.

The right to die debate has been an ongoing dispute between opposing sides of this controversial topic. The right to die is the decision made by an individual to die with dignity when they are still capable of continuing their life with the necessary support and equipment. It is a voluntary decision by an individual who is regarded as terminally ill to commit suicide with the refusal of any type of life support that sustains their life. Fatally ill patients who choose to end their own life can do so through physician prescribed medications.

Imagine laying in a hospital bed living everyday in extreme pain with no hope of getting better. This scenario explains what many people go through everyday, which is a living with a terminal illness. M. Lee, a science historian, and Alexander Stingl a sociologist, define terminal illness as “an illness from which the patient is not expected to recover even with treatment. As the illness progresses death is inevitable” (1). There are not many options for the terminally ill besides dying a slow and painful death, but assisted suicide could be best option for these patients. Assisted suicide is “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication” (Lee and Stingl 1). Some feel that assisted suicide is unnecessary because it is too great of a controversy and will only cause problems in society. However, assisted suicide should be legal in the United States as long as there are strict regulations to accompany it.

Last year a young woman named Brittany Maynard made headlines when her choice of “assisted suicide” became publicized through a mutual friend. She became a public figure and advocate for the “Right to die”. Throughout the years and more recently in my personal work experience I have encountered numerous people; even relatives with life threatening illnesses, most of them who went on to die. I have often wondered how many of these people would take advantage of their right to die on their own terms if there were certain laws in place. If you woke up tomorrow with a debilitating, and life threatening illness how would you react. Would you go in time, or would you go on your own time. If your choice would be to go in your own time, there is a

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.

According to Ullmann-Margalit (51) while dealing with the subject the agony of doubt deliberates that it is among the most confusing issues to deal with. Most people do not want to die, at least not now, and the debate of holding on to the inevitable and that of letting go heats up. Questions arise concerning the social, religious and ethical factors that have to be taken into play while considering end-of-life or right-to-die and thus bringing complexity to an otherwise easy decision. But the most crucial question to ask is: are those in support of the right-to-die justified in their movement? This will be the question that will be addressed in this argumentative essay.

The right to die has been a controversial topic for a while now; although, recently it has become widely publicized and it has gained more support due to a recent case. The “right to die” means that you can refuse phenomenal life-sustaining measures to prolong your life artificially when you are deemed by physician to be terminally or incurably ill. Even though people have not always been given the choice to die, you should be able to choose because it is not the governments say; it is yours. It is considered controversial because of ethics and religion. In the realm of ethics, it is unethical to kill someone, and having a doctor take you off of life support is technically killing the person. Considering religion, in the bible it speaks against suicide, which is in technical terms what happens if a person take lethal drugs given by a physician to die.

The right to die is one of the current hottest topics in the U.S. because this law creates disagreement for both parties. There are three states in the United States have the right to die law, and other states are consider about this law. Many people are afraid, nervous, and excited about this law. They are afraid that when this law passes, people may have different definitions about what life means. People could use this law for assisted suicide. Today technology will help us to fight many diseases, but there is other damage to the body, such as brain damage. Patients may not be able to recover. It is very difficult for families to watch the patients suffer when there is the possibility of a law, which could open another option for them to

Preserving life is the main goal for Doctors as well as societies intent to preserve and save life. An intelligent self aware individual should have the right to make the choice of when and how they die. It is an individual’s liberty and a sign of compassion as well as it is a physician's duty to alleviate suffering.

     Once having a mere glimpse into the lives of the terminally ill or disabled, some are able to understand their plight; but usually most are not. In most cases, these people are able to take what they've been given and deal with it. However, in some cases, some simply can not tolerate their lives as they are. They feel that the only solution to their problem is to end their lives. Unfortunately, in some cases, the terminally ill or disabled are not capable of accomplishing this task by themselves, and are left trapped in a life that they do not want. In these cases, when one wishes to end his life and is terminally ill, disabled, or otherwise unable to do so independently, he should have the right to die by assisted suicide. Although most people that are terminally ill or disabled do not wish to end their lives, there are still those few who do. While examining the issue of assisted suicide, three facets of the controversy must be considered: the political, the moral, and the human or compassionate views. By supporting their decision, we support their right to choose and decide what they want to do with their bodies and their lives, we do not

The debate over the use of euthanasia is ever growing. This is due to the fact of constant increases in medical advances. Medical advances are growing the number of medicines one can be given before palliative care is an option. The main concern of the debate is whether trying new treatments and medicines are necessary before palliative care is given. Two articles will be analyzed using the Aristotelian method. Both articles are valid, but the New York Times article written by Haider Javed Warraich offers a complete perspective using all three persuasive appeals compared to the article written by Terry Pratchett for The Guardian, which the majority is written on emotion.