To commit suicide is not a crime, but to condone, and assist in it is. Why is it, that if one wishes to end his or her own life, should not be helped to do so if they are unable to in a honorable manner? If suicide is honorable anyways. I do not believe that suicide is good, or right, but if one wishes to end their life, why should they not receive assistance? Why should we force upon them, an extended life in which they would only suffer? I am rather indifferent on this subject, as the morality of choosing the fate of another cannot fall of the side of right, or wrong. It is solely based upon the circumstances, and position one is put in.
Many people around the world today suffer from many forms of disease, and handicaps. From cancer and tumors; to total paralysis and AIDS. Medicine and technology as so far advanced, that many many patients that contract ailments that were once considered a death penalty, now face new hope. While such things as AIDS, and paralysis are not curable, people can be assured a longer, and possibly happier life than they would have a few decades ago; but...
If an individual wants to end their life, due to age, illness, or any other reason, they should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want. As a culture, we generally look down on suicide, and even disapprove the thought of someone wanting to die. It is often delineated as being selfish, and often leads to preventative course of action to prevent suicide. However, if someone believes that he or she has a moral right to die, and someone else agrees or disagrees, then begins an ethical dilemma. In my personal opinion, if someone wants to die, he or she should be allowed to commit suicide, or be assisted in death. There are implementations, such as not allowing anyone not of a set legal age to commit suicide or seek out an assisted death. If someone has a utilitarian approach to his or her death, believing that they have no further purpose in life, who
Starting with the argument of it not being ethical, Martin Levin a practicing attorney states; that when he first began his paper and research he believed people should have the right to an assisted suicide. After doing extensive research he changed his mind. Just some of these reasons include sanctity of human life. It is stated that God created the human life and therefore our lives and bodies are the property of God. It is also stated that no one has the right to destroy Gods’ property (Levin M. 2002). In many churches ho...
Although physician assisted suicide may result in the fulfillment of another’s choice, be considered a compassionate mean to end suffering, or even be considered a right, I believe it is not morally acceptable. In the act of physician assisted suicide, a patient voluntarily requests his or her doctor to assist in providing the means needed for self killing. In most cases of physician assisted suicide, patients who request this type of assistance are terminally ill and mentally competent (i.e. have sufficient understanding of an individual’s own situation and purpose and consequences of any action). Those who have committed the action of physician assisted suicide or condone the act may believe that one has the right to end their own life, the right of autonomy (the right or condition of self governing), the right to a dignified death, believe that others have a duty to minimize suffering, or believe it (physician assisted suicide) to be a compassionate act, or a combination of these things. However, since this act violates the intrinsic value of human life, it is not morally acceptable.
I understand that the nation’s history has long prohibited and shunned suicide, but in my opinion this is different. This is a more dignified death, which deals with personal autonomy. I understand the fears that the different states have regarding legalizing assisted suicide. However, other countries as well as some of the states have legalized it. It has not caused mass assisted suicides and I believe that it could be done in such a way that does not comprise the patient doctor trust. I am not saying that I condone assisted suicide for everyone, but it needs to be an option for people. I think that if abortion is an option, then assisted suicide should be too.
"If suicide is a right, then it is one that has remained undiscovered throughout the ages by the great thinkers in law, ethics, philosophy and theology. It appears nowhere in the Bible or the Koran or the Talmud. Committing suicide wasn't a "right" a thousand years ago, and it isn't one now. That's why most societies, including our own, have passed laws against it" (Callahan, pg. 71). Assisted suicide is murder!
In the end, morals are the only argument surrounding the subject of assisted suicide. There is no real way of determining what is right and what is wrong. It all comes down to your own morals and beliefs regarding human life. Each of us is given our own life and throughout it, we all make our own decisions regarding our wellbeing. We can choose to smoke cigarettes, consume alcohol, speed in cars, and put our lives in danger every day. This is our right as human beings. We chose to live our lives the way we want to live them, why should we not be able to choose how we die?
their best to defeat death, or at least try to delay it as long as possible. But
Should people have the right to kill themselves if they’re on the verge of dying? People are allowed to kill themselves in everyday life, so why can’t a person who knows that there is no way he will be able recover from his illness choose to end his life on his own terms? Many people don’t support and agree with assisted suicide. Even though many people don’t believe in physician assisted suicide, there are people suffering when they shouldn’t have too. A person who is terminally ill should have the right to choose to die if they choose. Being suicidal is just as much as a sickness as the flu. Both might need medicine to help get better as well as seeking professional help to take care of their aliment.. Someone who is suicidal is not something to be taken lightly..
Is physician assisted suicide morally right? This has been a controversial subject for some time now. People are wondering whether or not it is the most humane thing to do. If dogs can be putdown, why not people? The reason is in that question. They are people. Every life is important, no matter how long it may be. Instead of finding a way to get rid of people faster, the government could put those efforts in something more positive. If other people are considering whether or not the patients’ life is valuable, the patient could question it as well. Physician assisted suicide will put pressure on terminally ill people to die more quickly because it’s cheaper and because the patients may have low self-esteem.
Only people who have witnessed or experienced a terminal illness know how much it impacts a person’s life and their families. According to the Cancer Facts and Figures, in 2015, there was an estimate of 1,658,370 people who were diagnosed with cancer and 589,430 of those diagnosed with cancer had died (American Cancer Society). Medication evolves every day, yet there is little to do for cancer patients. They can go through various treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, however some patients these treatments are unbearable. In four states, physician assisted suicide is legal, many other states are debating on the issue at hand. States that have not legalized assisted suicide is due to it being considered murder and can result in imprisonment and doctor license revoked. There has been recent debates involving whether or not physician assisted suicide should be legalized because it is considered murder. Legalizing assisted suicide does not only provide an option to terminally ill patients, but gives others an option. Although some argue that physician assisted suicide should not be legalized, proponents argue that physician assisted suicide should allow options for the patients that are not suffering.
However it can also make room for medical, legal and ethical dilemmas. Advances in medical technology enable individuals to delay the inevitable fate of death, overcome cancer, diabetes, and various traumatic injuries. Our advances in medical technologies now allow these individuals to do things on their own terms. The “terminally ill” state is described as having an incurable or irreversible condition that has a high probability of causing death within a relatively short time with or without treatment (Guest, p.3, 1998). A wide range of degenerative diseases can fall into either category, ranging from, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease and many forms of cancer. This control, however, lays assistance, whether direct or indirect, from a
In all cases in the United States we start by looking at our Nation 's history, lawful customs, and practices. In pretty much every western democracy it is a wrongdoing to support a suicide. The States ' aided suicide bans are not advancements. Rather, they are longstanding outflows of the States ' dedication to the insurance and protection of all human life. Besides, the dominant part of States in this nation have laws forcing criminal punishments on one who aids an alternate to carry out suicide. “Though deeply rooted, the State 's ' assisted-suicide bans have in recent years been reexamined and, generally, reaffirmed. Because of advances in medicine and technology, Americans today are increasingly likely to die in institutions, from chronic illnesses(http://law2.umkc.edu).” So why would you let these people live out a inevitable death in a hospital bed suffering when we have the technology and resources to take them out of their pain and suffering. It is morally incorrect and wrong to force someone to live out a life they don 't want to live. However in recent years the States have took the initiative to solve this problem. Recently five states have voted to legalize physician assisted suicide in their state them including Denver, New Mexico, Montana, Oregon and Washington. A recent case that involved physician assisted suicide was Baxter vs Montana where someone with Leukemia
Dougherty, Charles J. & Co. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Harm Society.” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed.
An attempt at suicide, some psychologists say, is often a challenge to see if anyone out there really cares(Stengel). Indeed, seeking physician assistance in a suicide, rather than just acting to kill oneself, may well be a manifestation, however subconscious, of precisely that challenge. If society creates a "right to suicide" and legalizes "physician-assisted suicide," the message perceived by a suicide attempter is not likely to be, "We respect your wishes," but rather...
The authors of “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?" say that allowing people to assist in killing and destroying lives, along with devaluing human life, in a society that swears to protect and preserve all life, violates the fundamental moral society has to respect all human life. Once we devalue life, and say a certain quality of life isn’t worth living for a person, where will it stop? If assisted suicide is allowed for the terminally ill, society will start to accept and even presume that those with terminally ill conditions should end their life. The start of this divide assisted suicide can create is exemplified by Ben Mattlin. Mattlin has an incurable disease called spinal muscular atrophy. He was not expected to live into adulthood, yet has survived and now has two children of his own. “I could easily convince anyone that suicide is a rational option for me...and that scares me. Why shouldn’t I have the same barriers protecting me from moments of suicidal fantasies as everyone else has?” (Mattlin). This stresses the danger, as a society, that is posed to those with terminal conditions who want to live. Assisted suicide though seems to almost encourage ill people to end their lives. This is emphasized in the article “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?", explaining that if assisted suicide is legalized on the basis of compassion and mercy that society could start assisting “and