1245 Words5 Pages
Euthanasia has long since been the most controversial topic for pro-life and pro-choice supporters. These two groups have always been going at it since the first case of suicide, euthanasia, and abortion came up. Pro-life supporters believe that at all cost life should be protected and fought for; while pro-choice supporters believe that people have an individual and constitutional right to decide what they will in terms to their bodies. Even though I’m not in a situation nor old enough to start thinking about this, in the case of Euthanasia I believe that I have the right to choose what I feel is in the best decision for my family, loved ones, and myself. Euthanasia is an inalienable right offered to anyone who would like to die without pain, avoid becoming a vegetable, and for some people they would like to end their pain and suffering. Euthanasia has many definitions ranging in biases. Though the Euthanasia Society of America founded 1938, got it right, calling euthanasia the “Termination of Human life by painless means for the purpose of ending severe physical suffering (Koop, C. Everett).” Euthanasia over the years has taken many names that involve different stages of involvement of third parties in Euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia (A.K.A. Appropriate Care) is when a dying patient, in agreement with a living will or request from said person’s family if said persons’ become incompetent, will be allowed to, for lack of better words, cut the cord. Indirect euthanasia is the administration of large, lethal doses of analgesia to relieve pain and depress the patient’s respirator system and bring death quickly. Non voluntary euthanasia is performed on incompetent patients, such as those suffering from advanced senility or PVS. Volun... ... middle of paper ... ...t wish to continue her life unless she could live at least halfway normally (Jussim, 72).” As strong and vital as this statement and testimony was the Missouri court found the testimony “inherently unreliable” even though she was under oath (Jussim, 72). Despite this dismiss testimony; the ultimate final decision of Nancy’s court case came from the decision of a New Jersey court which ruled that the right to refuse treatment increased as the “degree of bodily invasion increases and the prognosis dims (Jussim, 66).” This applied because of the respirators, and feeding tubes used to keep her alive even though doctors knew that she couldn’t survive without it. In the end the Missouri court found that “People have the right to avoid unwanted medical treatment,” including life-prolonging treatments (Greenhouse). This allowed the Cruzan’s to finally let their daughter go.

More about Euthanasia

Open Document