Right To Die Act Research Paper

People are suffering from incurable debases or illness that can be very brutal to the patients end of life. When a patient is incurable and has the news that their end of life is extremely near, less than 6 months or in between. The patient might suffer longlines or sadness due to them having to leave behind everything they love, it’s very sad that they have to die but the pain makes and drives the patient to go with the death with dignity law that makes it easier for them to plan their death in a much better way without suffering any longer. While patients get a period of 15 days before they can proceed with the law the patient might suffering from emotional problems in between those last 15 days if they do not change their mind about the law. To provide less suffering and to give more freedom to that individual is all they are asking for. If only people could have more freedom and liberty as to decide when you get to

The recent decision by British Parliament to overwhelmingly reject the right to die law that would have allowed terminally ill adults to end their lives with medical supervision preserves the Suicide Act 1961 that protects vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse by those who might have an interest, financial or otherwise, in their deaths.

In 1997 Oregon arranged to enact the Death with Dignity Act. This act allows people who are residents of Oregon to end their own life through the voluntary self-administration o lethal medications, as prescribed by a medical professional who specifies in this area of healthcare. The Oregon Death with Dignity act requires that all physicians, patients and other professionals to submit patient information, data, and annual statistical reports to the Oregon Health Authority.

The Death with Dignity policy, Oregon state law Statute No. 127.865 is a law that allows people who have six months or less to live to end their lives in the comfort of their home and surrounded by loved ones in the most humanly way possible. A group of Oregonians, in the early-1990s, came together to cultivate a law sanctioning terminally ill patients to control their own end-of-life care. The group was comprised of residents, intellectuals and legal and medical experts, many of whom today serve on the board of directors (127.865, N.D.). Individuals must be confirmed by the patient's physician, or be an employee of a health care facility caring for the patient. The patient must orally request to take advantage of the

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

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).

I support Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act because it will allow the patient’s family to observe a peaceful, loving, and calm death with their last moments with their loved one. My mother had to watch my uncle suffer from his illness. It wasn’t comfortable for her because she had to watch him suffer and not being able to move by himself. He had lung cancer and he had the hardest time breathing. He never got the choice to request a lethal dose of medication unlike the patients in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont. Their family members don’t have to go through what my mother went through watching my uncle suffer. If he had a choice, I believe he would have taken the route to end his life with a pill. His death was not peaceful, loving, and calm at all from what my mom explained and that is how a death should be.

The Death with Dignity Act was first put into use in Oregon in 1997, and was used to insure terminally ill patients had the right to decide how much suffering they endure; not the government. Since then there have been similar acts passed in California, Vermont, and Washington. Death with Dignity laws allow terminally-ill patients, who are mentally competent, choose to take medication that quickens their death. Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is a very uncomfortable and very controversial topic, but it is one that needs to be discussed. The rights of the American people should include the discussion of dignity and what is considered torture or the infringement of basic human rights.

As human beings who prize and value their autonomy, one feels entitled to choose at the end of one's life though no such power is present or possible at the beginning. Moreover, one cannot possess a 'right to die', at least not in the same way one is said to have the right to life. In fact, the very notion of the right to die is an absurd claim, because we all will die: this is an inevitable, undisputed fact of human life. What one really means to say is that one should have the right to die 'on one's own terms.' Yet, let us look at the right to life. If someone has an absolute right to life, then within that right is embedded the obligation or duty of others to respect and preserve this right. The 'right to die', if it is also said to be a right in this sense, it must also imply an obligation to the person who has claim to this right. So, others, doctors or family members, would have the obligation to kill someone who makes a stable, competent request for death. This, of course, would have serious implications for health care providers - particularly with regard to what end of life care really

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

Is the phrase “right to die” applicable as a right? Leon R. Kass believes that the claim of a “right to die” is insubstantial because of the precursors pertaining to the meaning of rights. Leon R. Kass believes that the right to die is an ineffectual statement and unprecedented, that it is portrayed as a civil duty to which all should be in unison because Euthanasia is after all “Mercy Killing”. Right!? This case delves into the moral domain, within which it derives it’s relevance to the subject of Bioethics, Euthanasia is a popular subject that health care professionals, lawyers and theologians have dealt with for a long time. While it is an extreme and exceptional case to support and argue in favor of,

Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in all states. Terminally ill patients need to have

“. . . From advance directives to physician-assisted dying, death with dignity is a moment to provide options for the dying to control their own end-of-life care” (“Death with Dignity”).

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

As American citizens, we are protected by individual liberties and the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is simple; it is to ensure that the American citizens are guaranteed a substantial number of personal freedoms. What if a person’s dying wish was to die on his or her own terms? Dying on peoples own terms, seems like it would be a constitutional freedom, but sadly, it is not. Image a loved one, a friend, or a family member struck with immeasurable pain faced with a terminal and intolerable illness. This patient would have to go through agonizing pain to fight a battle they cannot win, for the disease has already won. When faced with pain and death, neither the government, nor doctors should have a say other than the patients themselves when choosing to end their life. The decision or ‘the Right To Die’ is solely for that person to make. The decision to end one’s life should be a personal freedom.