The Right to Choose, The Right to Die
by Marissa Allen
The idea of euthanasia has been around since the early 1800’s. “The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court’s decisions relation to marriage, family relationships, precreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court’s recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death” (“The Top 10”, 2012). If a patient believes their quality of life has been lost, they should be granted the right to choose when to end their life. “It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent” (“The Top 10”, 2012).
Euthanasia should be legal with qualifications, meaning that it should be allowed under certain circumstances. “The ancients stressed the voluntary nature of the dying, provided that it was done for the right reasons; for example, to end the suffering of a terminal illness” (Historical timeline: History”, 2013). There should be certain criteria that should be taken into consideration when deciding to end a life. First, is the patient experiencing a terminal illness? How old is the patient? Is the patient mentally stable enough to make this kind of decision? Does the supporting family believe in euthanasia? If any of the answers to these question cause discrepancies in the decision to end the patient’s life, then the act of euthanasia should not be carried out but ultimately the dying patient should have the greatest effect over the final decision.
Bibliography
Top 10 pros and cons: Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?. (2012, May 18). Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126
Historical timeline: History of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. (2013, May 23). Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000130
Euthanasia should be legal with qualifications, meaning that it should be allowed under certain circumstances. “The ancients stressed the voluntary nature of the dying, provided that it was done for the right reasons; for example, to end the suffering of a terminal illness” (Historical timeline: History”, 2013). There should be certain criteria that should be taken into consideration when deciding to end a life. First, is the patient experiencing a terminal illness? How old is the patient? Is the patient mentally stable enough to make this kind of decision? Does the supporting family believe in euthanasia? If any of the answers to these question cause discrepancies in the decision to end the patient’s life, then the act of euthanasia should not be carried out but ultimately the dying patient should have the greatest effect over the final decision.
Bibliography
Top 10 pros and cons: Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?. (2012, May 18). Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126
Historical timeline: History of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. (2013, May 23). Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000130