NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... with motor neuron disease causing her terrible physical disability. Diane Pretty wants to choose how and when she dies, but will need assistance in ending her life because she is physically incapacitated (Justice 4 Diane 1). The request to the Supreme Court was made asking if her husband Brian Pretty could assist his wife in taking her own life without any prosecution. The reply provided no assurance for Brian and Diane and did not give a definite answer on the prosecution.
The Pretty family decided to debate this issue in court and attempt to win their right to decide on her life. On 10 th and 11 th of October 2001, Diane's lawyers argued that the courts decision did not comply with the Human Rights Act. The main focus of their arguments concentrated on three key rights protected by the new law: Article 3 says it is everyone's absolute right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment - treatment that causes intense physical and mental suffering. By not allowing Diane's choice that someone help her end her life, the law condemns Mrs. Pretty to prolonged suffering and increasing loss of dignity.
Article 8 is the right to privacy and to personal autonomy over one's own body, free from state interference. Because of her physical condition Diane requires help in order to exercise her autonomy - and so the law should allow her to request this assistance. Article 14 outlaws discrimination. If Diane were less physically disabled she could end her own life legally because suicide is not a criminal offence. However, motor neuron disease has weakened Diane physically and she would need a third party's assistance, but she is prevented from receiving such assistance by the 1961 Suicide Act, which criminalized assisted suicide.
Hence she is being discriminated against. (2) Due to the il legalization of active euthanasia, Diane Pretty's wishes and rights are denied which portrays evidence that such thinking behind the legal system is invalid. Similarly, to insist that an individual continue to live without certain implementation of the conditions under which he chooses to live may be a violation of his rights, if not his privacy (Goldfarb 6). Diane Pretty exclaims that she desperately wants a doctor to help her die (Justice 4 Diane 2), but due to her condition, she is unable to do it herself and needs assistance. Diane requests a quick death without suffering, at her house surrounded by her family so she can say good bye to them. The change in law to legalize active euthanasia will allow patients sufferings, like those of Diane Pretty, to not be endured. In the movement to legalize active euthanasia, Dr.
Jack Kevorkian is one of the strongest supporters who consider the law as a violation of our rights and privacy. In the late 1980 s, Kevorkian built a machine that assisted people to commit suicide by giving them a narcotic followed by a lethal dose of potassium chloride. In 1990, Kevorkian found his first client in Janet Adkins, who was a 54 year old Alzheimers patient from Portland Oregon. Since 1990, Kevorkian assisted at least 130 patients in committing suicide.
In 1998, he videotaped how he assisted one of his patients with a lethal injection instead of providing the means for the patient to kill himself. The patient had Lou Gehrigs disease and could not move, but clearly asked Kevorkian to help him. Doctor Kevorkian videotaped the procedure to portray innocence because the patient clearly asked for his help. Kevorkian's beliefs were distinguished from all other patients because the assumption was that he was acting on behalf of the patients rights.
When the videotape was aired on 60 minutes, Kevorkian was brought to trial for the fifth time and this time convicted to ten to twenty five years in prison. Kevorkian granted painless death to a hopelessly ill patient with a non curable disease and helped a person out of misery and suffering. The Human Rights Act allows an individual to have his rights to choose life or death and government or society should have no power over the decision. Kevorkian's opinion on life encompasses the answer to the question of what right does society have to insist that a person live as long as possible? (Russell 3). The law does not dictate that it is illegal to act upon passive euthanasia and commit suicide, but does state that active euthanasia is illegal; when the physician is only trying to help the patient die in peace, rather than die by choking or suffocation (Justice 4 Diane 2).
As the law stands it makes no sense. Kevorkian's actions have helped society confront a critical issue and protect the humane right to privacy. In Oregon, where the practice of active euthanasia is allowed, no abuse of the system has occurred and doctors respected the persons demands as long as the request was present. The law has major contradictions within it and therefore causes major controversial issues involving active euthanasia. Kevorkian's ethics and moral beliefs are justified because people in society need to express their right to make their own decisions and no authority should intervene with the privacy of the persons life when there is no harm done to any other individual. In conclusion, the moral and ethical beliefs surrounding active euthanasia are justified.
Every person has the right to choose his or her own lifes fate and decide what is suitable for that person. Specific laws that govern the peoples lives such as Human Rights Act, and Oregon's Death with Dignity law establish straight forward guidelines of what is right and wrong. When society denies people of such privileges, then the law does not stand true. The movement to legalize active euthanasia will administer great control of peoples own lives and allow the quality of life to be more enjoyable. The individual should be allowed to control the moment where quality comes first and that being human is more important than being alive (Kohl 48). The law should allow individuals choose whether they want to die in dignity or in memories of pain and suffering.
The infrastructure of todays moral and ethical standards should incorporate wants and needs of individuals and legalize active euthanasia.
Free research essays on topics related to: diane, moral and ethical, human rights act, active euthanasia, commit suicide
Research essay sample on Human Rights Act Moral And Ethical
