The Right to Die

Here in the United States, the topic of assisted suicide as long being discussed and disputed many times especially when there is a high profile case in the news. According to (Sanburn, J 2015) throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Death with Dignity National Center kept an office in Washington, D.C. For years, Republican lawmakers tried to pass legislation nullifying Oregon’s 1997 Death with Dignity Act, which allowed terminally ill patients to obtain life-ending medication. The legislation never made it out of the Senate, but it eventually passed in the Republican-controlled House, and the aid-in-dying organization felt compelled to keep pressure on Congress to stop the bill. Then came Terri Schiavo.

The state of Missouri’s Right to Life Policy affirms the legal action of permitting people to die with “clear and convincing” evidence supporting the patient’s desire to end his/her life in a situation of chronic illness or incompetence. The controversial topic of refusing treatment and/or assisting in suicide reached the Supreme Court of the United States for the first time on December 6, 1989. Lower court decisions and appeals contributed to the events of the Cruzan V. Missouri case leading up to the highest court of the United States of America.

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).

Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, has been a hot topic as of late. If you do not know what this is, physician-assisted suicide is the taking of ones life. This usually occurs when a patient is in a irreversible state, and must live through a tube. With multiple cases occurring in the past, current and the more to occur the in the future, this looks to remain a hot topic. Some of those cases include Terri Schiavo, and Scott Thomas, which have both resulted in court cases and conversation all around the globe. Physician-assisted suicide is one of those topics that can be looked at multiple ways, and have multiple different solutions. Someone could look and justify it through the lens of Natural law and could bring up the doctrine of double effects, or the preservation of human life. Another person could go against it by using utilitarianism and could bring up how it maximizes the good, and produces the greatest overall good. Whether you find it to be murder/suicide or just a smarter decision if you cannot life properly, you must realize this is an issue that does need to be discussed more. Even with the attention it has gotten, it still is not discussed politically, and is not up there with other popular topics in our media today. If someone is in a state where he or she has to live off a tube is he or she really even alive?

The right-to-die movement is spreading across the United States. Right-to-die refers to issues that involve the decisions of an individual to be allowed to die, when they could survive on life support or in a diminished state. This also allows for terminally ill people to refuse life support and/or die with dignity (Right to Die, n.d.). With this movement has come many legal issues. In 1976, the US court system dealt with its first case of right-to-die decisions with in re Quinlan (How the ‘Right to Die’ Came to America, n.d.). There have since been a few stand out cases, like Terri Schiavo and Brittany Maynard, that have helped to pave the way for others who would like to exercise death with dignity. Some cases have also been argued as violations

Death with Dignity is an extremely controversial subject, the conflict is not one that many people can stand on the sidelines without an opinion. A person can either be for or against, while I understand why people agree with the concept and support those who choice to end their lives in this way, I do not agree with a person ending their life prematurely. My own ideas, however, should not affect another person’s decision about their own life. That is why, although I do not fully agree with the concept of Death with Dignity, I believe that it should be legal in all 50 states.

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).

However, if a person is unable to make the decision to pursue euthanasia with a sound mind, why would another individual let their unwell mind decide between life and death? Nevertheless, the legalization of euthanasia still stands because if the patient is not capable of making their own sound decision on their life, but have previously expressed interest in the use of euthanasia; the decision would be left to the family to use their best judgement based on personal opinions and the current situation they are in. While others will argue that the government has the job to protect an individual’s right to life, no matter what; and euthanasia is essentially suicide, which is illegal. They say that the government is not protecting the individual’s right to life. While that point is somewhat true, it is unimportant because the government should not intervene with someone’s life who has thoroughly thought it through when they are faced with a terminal disease. The patient who is terminally ill is going to die soon anyways and they should have the choice, if they wish; whether to die by choice with a sense of dignity rather than being defeated by their illness itself. If the government truly had to protect every individual’s right to life, they would also need to protect their quality of life. Quality is superior to quantity; the quality of life is more significant than how long one has lived. Everyone eventually dies, so technically the government fails to protect everyone’s right to life. Those on the other side of the issue may say that without a doctor’s opinion, the person to be euthanized would not know for sure if they can truly be treated. However, that point is not important because usually, the doctor is going to tell the patient that there is always a possibility for treatment so they can continue to make money off of the patient. Also, if a patient is

Imagine that you have come down with a disease and you have just been told that there is no cure. There in your hospital bed all you can think about is the pain and the agony you are going to have to endure for the rest of your remaining life. I for one know that I do not want to spend my last times on this earth in pain and discomfort, knowing that I will never walk again, or feed myself, or maybe ever even come back to consciousness. For years, doctors have been prohibited from helping patients to take their own lives. I believe that a terminally ill patient should have the right to decide if they have had enough. By legalizing euthanasia, also referred to as physician assisted suicide, tremendous pain and suffering of

In the United States, we argue over what rights we have as living people. We even argue over what defines “life,” and when the rights we do have are established. Contrary to that, there are only 3 states in this nation that support the exact opposite of that—Aid in Dying (AID). Also known as Physician-Assisted Suicide, it is one of the most controversial and most debated subjects in the country. It is a topic that needs more discussion, and it also needs more support. In the 3 states that have passed this legislation—Oregon, Washington, and Vermont—they require a patient to be both terminally ill, meaning having a prognosis of less than six months to live, and to be mentally capable of making such a decision. We have various laws surrounding our right to life. For example, we know that the law prohibits homicide. However, what about our right to die with dignity? There are so many arguments opposing Physician-Assisted Suicide that they seem to overshadow the arguments for it. As a society, we need to come together and set aside our personal beliefs in order to understand and embrace this alternative.

It is not okay to assist someone with a mental disability in ending their life. There are various treatments and medications available for patients who are suffering from a mental illness. Medications, along with regularly kept doctor's appointments can help a mentally ill patients to improve their quality of life. According to Life.org, “Accepting a Right to Suicide would create a legal presumption of sanity, preventing appropriate mental health treatment.” Just because someone is tired of living or feels like they just do not want to deal with the pressure that life holds, committing suicide is seen as a sin and a crime. For the individual who assists in that suicide, is a murderer. The words murder and homicide often go hand in hand with

A patient could feel that it is unfair to be denied what they believe their right to die is. There are additional issues that a patient could experience along with the loss of their health. There is the loss of privacy, pride, and dignity when unable to care for self.

This highly debatable topic amongst families, lawyers, and doctors questions the ethical viewpoint of whether people have the right to die in a method and time of their own choosing. The right to die is the most personal choice one can make. If people can make considerably, irreversible choices like to have an abortion or a sex change, then why are they being stripped of their right to die? If

The legalization of euthanasia has always been a highly debatable topic since it causes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical controversy where some people believe it reduces our respect for the value of human life and it will be a gateway for other immoral actions to be normalized even though it is a basic human right that patients all over the world are denied to this day.

Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.