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
The Right to Die Death with dignity, isnt that the way we all dream of dying? Dying of old age is dignified. When one dies of old age, ones heart just stops; it is quick and painless. But diseases such as AIDS and cancer are long-term. When someone is told he has a terminal disease, he is usually given his date of death. Until that date of death, all he can do is suffer.
The patient must go through the pain and suffering of the illness, not to get better, but to die. All people are given the right to live; we also deserve the right to die. Why go through the unnecessary pain and suffering of a terminal illness? Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states. However, many oppose the idea of physician assisted suicide.
Those who oppose physician-assisted suicide, or PAS, say the Hippocratic oath alone is an example of why PAS can never be legal. The Hippocratic oath is an oath that every doctor must take. The Hippocratic oath states I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect (Weir 5). Opponents agree it is all right for a doctor to opt to not resuscitate, or to cut off life support.
However, they say it is not all right to chose to use PAS when suffering with a terminal illness. Opponents fear that if PAS is legalized for use with terminally ill patients, it will not be very long before its uses broaden and people other than the terminally ill decide to try and benefit from the law (Kamisar 409). They are worried that PAS will become a dinnertime conversation, as common as football or music. Some fear that by legalizing PAS, the physician will be given too much power (Assisted 394). Also religious views argue against PAS. For example, the Roman Catholic faith has taken a firm stand against it.
Christians believe it is up to God to decide when it is the right time to die (Westley v). Opponents worry that PAS will destroy the morals of American society. They say PAS is something morally and ethically wrong, and easily abused. On the other hand, some say we should legalize PAS.
It is time for a change. Opponents just dont realize how beneficial PAS could be if legalized. First of all, proponents argue it is our constitutional right to die with dignity (Bernstein K 2744). As for the Hippocratic oath, it speaks of how doctors are required to relieve ones pain. At the same time, the oath does not allow for the prescription of deadly drugs. This combination of statements is not always possible (Smith 409).
What happens when the only way to relieve ones pain is to let him or her die? Proponents say in this very situation, PAS is the answer. The second issue opponents bring up is that of religion. In his book When its Right to Die, Dick Westley argues that Roman Catholics are misinterpreting the Bible.
Westley discusses how Ecclesiastes writes about how there is an appointed time for everything. There is a time to live and a time to die (Westley 27). So if a person uses PAS, whos to say that is not ones time to die? If one feels PAS is the way out, and decides to go through with it, then that is his time to die.
Fourth, opponents say a law for PAS will eventually be taken too far. They worry that murders will take place and be dismissed as just more cases of PAS. However, a law for the legalization of PAS will only go too far if we allow it. As long as guidelines are strictly kept, and PAS cases are kept under a close watch, people will be unable to abuse this new law (Kamisar 409).
Whether opponents like it or not, someone with a terminal disease deserves the right to die. No one in his or her right mind would try and take a law as serious as PAS too far. The people who are abusing it are the ones who are morally wrong; not those who agree with PAS. The final opposing argument is the belief that PAS will make doctors too powerful (Assisted 394).
Doctors, however, will not become too powerful. Currently, doctors are overly powerful; just take a look at all the power a doctor possesses. When a person seeks the aid of a doctor, every word said is treated like gold. It is too often true that no matter what the doctor says, the patient believes it. We rely on the doctor to tell us whats wrong and to tell us everything is going to be okay. They prescribe magic drugs that make everything better.
Doctors would be no more powerful than they are today. Before PAS can be discussed any further, it is important to understand exactly what physician-assisted suicide is. First, one must recognize the difference between Euthanasia and PAS. In PAS, the physician, or enforcer, arranges all aspects of the suicide and the patient presses the button. On the other hand, euthanasia occurs when the physician actually administers the lethal dose (Weir 86). Janet Adkins was the first of Dr.
Jack Kevorkian's patients to go through PAS. In 1989, Adkins was diagnosed with Alzheimers disease. The disease began to effect her mind and eventually she was helpless. She chose to contact Dr. Kevorkian in an attempt to die with dignity. Dr.
Kevorkian hooked Adkins up intravenously to various lethal drugs and gave her close instructions on what to do. Adkins, at her own free will, pressed the button and ended her life (Assisted 402). This is no different from ending life-sustaining treatments, yet people still only see death from ending resuscitation as the more common, medically accepted way out. Both are death by the choice of the patient. This similarity leads one to wonder-why one is legal and the other not? Obviously if people are not abusing the resuscitation rule, they will not violate the PAS law if it came into effect.
Furthermore, a Death with Dignity law would effectively regulate PAS. In Oregon, the Die with Dignity law came into effect November 8, 1994 (Keown 245). The law has been effective in Oregon. PAS proponents believe it should become law in the other 49 states as well. There are three major aspects of the law. First, two doctors must agree the patient has less than six months to live.
Second, the patient must ask the physician for suicide assistance at least three times, and the third time it must be done in writing. Third, the doctor must wait at least 15 days after the first request and two days after the third request before writing a prescription. The law also states that the drugs must be self-administered. This law includes these safeguards, as well as others, which keep doctors from becoming too powerful, while at the same time allowing the patient the right to die with dignity (Assisted 408). Many people support a Die with Dignity law. For example, a survey of 1, 000 people conducted in 1993 for Derek Humphrys Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization showed that 65 % of people surveyed were for the die with dignity law (Assisted 398).
In addition, a survey conducted in September 1994 of 500 people which was conducted for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops showed 46 % of people were in favor of a law for PAS (Assisted 398). This shows that half of practicing Catholics, who according to their religion should be against PAS, view such a law as okay. If this many people who are more inclined to be against it are for it, than a much larger percentage of the public at large would be in favor of a Die with Dignity law. Also, yet another survey conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA) took a random sampling of doctors from six urban areas in the United States. It showed that white doctors who have been practicing medicine for a longer time are the most willing to participate in PAS (Summary 1034). So, the patients want it, many doctors want it, whats the problem?
Also, PAS can be considered a Constitutional right. In the Constitution, we are given an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we have lived our lives to the point where our happiness can only be found in death, what is next? There is no happiness in suffering. Sometimes joy may be found through death, and sometimes through PAS.
Our laws are based on the Constitution. The three words, pursuit of happiness are proof of every humans right to undergo PAS if deemed fit. Death with dignity is an equivalent to happiness to a person with a terminal illness. This is why Dr. Kevorkian cannot be found guilty of his so-called crimes (Bernstein K 2744). His court cases have wasted time, effort, and money.
Kevorkian has opened the publics eyes to PAS, stirring a nation-wide debate as well as opening doors for the terminally ill. In the United States we are all free people who have the right to choose. Oregon is definitely on the right track. The terminally ill should definitely be given the legal right to choose a quick and painless death over suffering. People have the right to live, as well as the right to die: physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states.
Free research essays on topics related to: pain and suffering, death with dignity, die with dignity, time to die, physician assisted suicide
Research essay sample on Physician Assisted Suicide Die With Dignity
