Assisted suicide has been one of the most controversial topics encoded in society to this day. Everyone has their own side of the story to tell their opinion. This is a socially debated topic that, when it boils down to the point, it is all just someone making a decision, whether the choice is to end one’s life and agony, or to preserve their pain. This should be a choice that the victims decide for themselves. However, in the land of the free, only one state has voted to legalizing assisted suicide. I stand by the right to choose assisted suicide. Assisted suicide and Euthanasia should be the choice of the people falling victim to such actions. This paper will be showing supporting reasons why assisted suicide should be the choice of the one that lays victim to it.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (‘well’) and thanatos (‘death’). It means a painless and gentle death. But in modern usage, it has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by some passive or active steps taken by another person. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, euthanasia is in principle morally permissible. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly make his intentions known. (Downing 1969) In these cases it is often family members who make the request. It is important not to confuse non-voluntary mercy killing with involuntary mercy killing. The latter would be done against the wishes of the patient and would clearly count as murder.
Underlying the ethical and legal debates over assisted suicide and euthanasia are a number of issues that focus upon the Patient, worldviews, family, and religion. Some positions on assisted suicide and euthanasia can be based upon assumptions regarding the psychodynamics to request assistance in suicide, which can be evaluated only with more research in the future. But In the meantime, a patient that is requesting assistance with suicide from a physician should receive their wish, but continue to search and try to identify other ways to relieve suffering. Although life is valuable and sacred a person should have the right to choose how they should die.
Death and dying are a natural part of our lives. Not a day goes by that we do not take the chance of being run over by a car while running, being stabbed in a robbery, or being poisoned by bacteria in our food. In all of these cases, we have very little choice in deciding our fate. But what about those cases when we can do something to affect the dying process? What if we can decide whether we wish to live or die? For most of us, that is still uncharted territory, and just the thought of it chills us to the bone. Euthanasia is one such opportunity where a person can affect the dying process. It is not, as many people believe, a case of a physician killing a patient, but instead, a case where a patient who is facing a prolonged, painful, and, finally, terminal illness can make a conscious and reasoned choice to end his or her suffering early and in a dignified manner. It is the purpose of this paper to prove to you that euthanasia in the form of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) should be legalized. That a person facing a terminal illness should have the opportunity, and the right, to choose to die in a dignified manner when faced with a prolonged and terminal illness. That a physician should not be restrained in committing an act which might be in the best interest of a patient. And that if legalized, it would be possible to protect the patient's interests through regulation, and in effect, make euthanasia a perfectly safe choice for a patient.
Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia are phenomena developed in the past 20 years. They’re similar to each other because they both have to do with taking away another human being’s life. While assisted suicide is defined as the act of providing a drug prescription or lethal dosage to a patient by a physician and the person can decide when to take the dosage, euthanasia is the practice of killing a sick individual where a physician takes an active part on the process. PAS and euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Colombia, India, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Oregon, Washington , Montana and Vermont. For years a debate on assisted death has been going on. There are groups who believe it should not be charged as murder and there are others who believe it should. In this essay the reader will be introduced to some of the main reasons why a government pass a law to make them [PAS and euthanasia] legal.
The most argued issue with assisted suicide is grounded in morals and religion. The sanctity of life is the philosophy that human life is sacred and should be protected from any form of v...
Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Remarkably, few have noticed that frail, elderly and terminally ill people oppose assisted suicide more than other Americans. The assisted-suicide agenda is moving forward chiefly with vocal support from the young, the able-bodied and the affluent, who may even think that their parents and grandparents share their enthusiasm. They are wrong.
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,