Terminally ill patients should have the right to assisted suicide because it is the best means for them to end the pain caused by an illness which no drug can cure.
This ruling is the strongest defense for the right to assisted suicide. The choice would also put a halt to the financial worries of these families. Jeffrey and Lonette Stayton Awards for Writing The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States.
The advancement of medicine has given people with a disease like cancer a second chance at life when treatments are successful. The outcomes bring out a greater acceptance of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia among the physicians. Secondly, proposition is seen as philosophically perplexed because death is not a value in the ideal community at all.
This interpretation made it illegal for physicians to prescribe medication for PAS. For example, as Ronald Dworkin recounts, Lillian Boyes, an English woman who was suffering from a severe case of rheumatoid arthritis, begged her doctor to assist her to die because she could no longer stand the pain A few years later the act acquired a new obstacle by the name of District Attorney John Ashcroft.
Most terminal patients want their death to be a peaceful one and with as much consolation as possible. Competent terminal patients can easily see the sorrow and grief that their families undergo while they wait for death to take their dying loved ones away.
On the other hand, dead people cannot even take part in choosing the kind of the lifestyle they want to lead.
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. Arguments like these have been argued before the Supreme Court but have failed to get a ruling in favor of Physician assisted suicide.
But, successful or not, medicine has a high price attached to it. The choice of assisted suicide would allow these terminally ill patients to end the sorrow and griefof their families as well as their own misery.
Medical technology today has achieved remarkable feats in prolonging the lives of human beings. Because of these facts underlying the consumption of the above substances, the connection between them and euthanasia does not hold.
Those terminally ill patients who have accepted their imminent death cannot prevent their families from plunging into financial debt because they do not have the option of halting the medical bills from piling up. Khalili] was a pain specialist; he could get any kind of pain medication, but he came to Dr.
Terminally ill patients should be allowed to die with dignity. The terminally ill also have rights like normal, healthy citizens do and they cannot be denied the right not to suffer.
More importantly, however, all people value life, not because they think it is an inevitable naturally good, but rather for the significant reason that positive attitudes towards being alive are necessary to live a most worthwhile life at all.
It should be viewed as a non-existence state. 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.
It is a liberty which cannot be denied because those who are dying might want to use this liberty as a way to pursue their happiness. Since the s the morality of assisted suicide has been a legal and political argument. When that loved-one passes away, however, the family has to struggle with a huge hospital bill and are often subject to financial ruin.
To leave the family in financial ruin is by no means a form of consolation. First, the observational based assertion rests on one sensational and hypothetical description of one state of the terminal illness.
This claim is countered by a judge by the name of Stephen Reinhardt. Ashcroft has been a contender of the act since when he issued a new interpretation of the controlled substance Act. Medical breakthroughs are common around the world every day.Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide should not be legal.
It is an unethical option. Rushing the death of a person by changing some form of support and letting nature take its course or stopping a treatment that will cause the person to finally die is what's known as passive euthanasia.
The main issues are that the terminally ill should be able to choose when they should die, physician-assisted suicide would help alleviate the suffering of both the terminally ill patient and their family, and physicians should not be prosecuted for their role in physician-assisted suicide.
- Physician assisted suicide Physician assisted suicide, a suicide made possible by a physician providing a patient with the means to kill themselves, and euthanasia, the kindness of taking individual life by the physician, is an extremely debatable topic.
However, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized because it offers terminally ill people an opportunity for a peaceful death and recognized the inadequacy of. Physician-Assisted Suicide Essay - Euthanasia Should Not be Legalized Words | 4 Pages Euthanasia Should Not be Legalized "It is conceivable, that life can deteriorate to the point where persons lose their dignity and self-respect and are unable to communicate; life in such a form no longer meets meets the basic criteria of human- ness.".
Read Physician Assisted Suicide free essay and over 88, other research documents. Physician Assisted Suicide. Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized in the United States. Physician Membership On Hospital Boards. AntiDepressants Link Adolescent Teenage Suicide/5(1).Download