Should the law allow for the right to die? Introduction: This is the world’s controversial question that had been thought over for decades. Talking about the right to die, it always gets linked with euthanasia of which the word derived from the Greek eu which means ‘good’, and thanatos which has the meaning of ‘death’. Therefore basically euthanasia means ‘good death’ or now which has been defined specifically as ‘an act or practice of ending the life of a person who is suffering from an incurable and often painful or distressing illness’. Apart from an aspect of good death, there are so many more perspectives, aspects and point of views to be looked at. First the perspective of the religion sides which plays a big role in determining life arguments. Ethnicity, cultural practises, philosophical aspects, social acceptance and cultural practises also contribute whether the law is to allow for the right to die. Therefore, in this assignment we are to discuss the above-mentioned aspects regarding the right to die and that whether the law should allow it or not. Since the arguments over the issues of the right to die, the group has been separated into three groups of which the supporting, opposing and the neutral group to the issue regarding the topic with each distinct point of views, factual information, the arguments and their supports. Supporting facts and arguments for the right to die: Firstly, euthanasia has become issues of increasing the attention in the world of today. And euthanasia should be legalized if we ever have a loved one who is suffering and of whose death is certain, the option should be given to ease their pain if they are willing to do so. Euthanasia also explains that people are entitled to their own death with dignity. People should have the right to control their own death. Therefore a patient should not be forced to live if their present health conditions have become incurable along with the sufferance of unbearable pain since "Death is often better than dying". In circumstances like this people should have the option to continue to live or to die where no one else except from the sufferer has the right to control over choices and options on behalf. Morally speaking, it is undeniable that an individual’s moral right whether to take one’s own life or not should also be supported. In the world of today, there has also been an increasing number of public acceptances in helping a terminally ill patient end the life to avoid the unbearably long sufferings and the reason of doing so can be justified because it is clearly not a mere commitment of suicide. Another argument is that doctors are not always responsible for doing everything they can to save someone. If a patient has a terminal illness and is in great pain and patients think they want to end their lives rather than continue living with the illness, doctors should be given the opportunity to help. According to the American Medical Association, doctors are to dedicate their lives to the reduction of suffering, to increase and extension of life, and of human destinies. The association has highlighted the obvious reduction of the suffering before the enhancement and life extension. Another factor would be if euthanasia is made illegal, there will be no absolute freedom of choice and the freedom to choose by someone to death with dignity and free from pain and suffering for themselves and their families. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia is all about having options. Most people today believe that every person should be given the right to choose how they live and die. It is not your life, if you cannot choose when to let go according to your will. Opposing facts and arguments for the right to die: On the contrary to the supporting facts, there is also a set of reasons why the law should not allow for the right to die. Firstly if the law allows the right to die in terms of the legalization of assisted deaths, we have to consider the fact that no arrangement is free from abuse. When the assisted deaths have become legal, it would be on the hands of the doctors who have the total control over heavy dosage of pain relieving medicine that hastens death. As a result, the existing legalization would mean that there would be covert incidents of unnecessary assisted death. This highly highlights the trust between doctor and patient where people’s expectation towards medical doctors and physicians are to heal lives but not to kill upon request. In a nutshell, it can just be defined as “killing” if the families including the sufferers are to support the ending of the misery merely out of desperation and emotional exhaustion. In this case, lives could be perceived not as valued when the society provides a way to kill them. Secondly, if we look in-depth into the context of Euthanasia, it is a factor that had devalued human’s life. Euthanasia ends human’s life just based on his or her own agreement and willingness whereby the parents or family members might not agree to it. For example, a man who suffered from depression and intended to commit suicide in a painless way, which is by going through Euthanasia process will then not even discuss with the family members or parents about it but just directly approach the physicians, pay up a certain amount of money and get the injection to be killed. In fact, they should or just go for a counseling session or seek for helps in order to overcome the bad situations but not just to end their own life irresponsibly. Establishment of Euthanasia also causes people who are suffered from illnesses and intractable pains intended to commit suicide in order to relieve them. On the other hand, there is no control towards the level of seriousness to each illness that can be allowed to undergo Euthanasia and therefore, people tend to take it as a way of escaping any pains caused by illness that might even be just a minor illness whereby there are actually chances of recovery. For example, a particular person suffered from daily headache which caused him to be very irritated and could not focus on work or anything else, might just chose to end his own life without going through medical checkup or proper treatment as they tend to see Euthanasia as a way of pain relieving. In fact, they do not realize how worthy their own life are and illnesses are part of the nature in human’s life. Furthermore, Physicians and medical care people should not be involving in activities that directly cause death including Euthanasia which helps people in committing suicide activities. Euthanasia should mainly be carried out by Physicians whereby the main duties and responsibilities of those physicians are to: i. Practice general medicines and medical treatments as distinct from surgery ii. Heal or exert a healing influence iii. Help patients with their knowledge from illnesses In Euthanasia, Physicians participated in suicide-assisting activities which are mainly out of their responsibilities after accepting a certain amount of money with the intention “to help a patient relieve their pains or suffering in any form such as depression or hopelessness”. However in reality, they are taking away human’s life just based on that person’s initiation which might just be occurred on an action on impulse basis since they perceive their own life as not worth-living. In fact, advises and consultation such as practices of palliative care would be able to help them to overcome such situation rather than just taking away their life which is practically unethical and immoral. Furthermore if we have to be taken account of the General Practitioners’ (GPs) point of view, apart from those who are stipulating the right to help incurably ill patients end their lives themselves, there is also a vehement disagreement from the opposition group of other GPs. The argument could be based on the fear that it might transform the conventional doctor-patient relationship to an extent that pressures might be given on the sick to end their lives for the sake of the families or any other setbacks like abuse of a system or empowerment. The impact of the law of whether to allow for the right to die is also enormous in a sense that the two end of the solutions whether a yes or a no could lead to perfectly legal or life sentence. The fact can be supported by the use of Dr. Harold Shipman’s case of whom was notoriously known to be Britain’s biggest serial killer who had allegedly committed murders of a reasonable figure of 150 patients. Mr. Shipman as a medical student at the Leeds University had great fascination over drugs which led to convictions, heavy fine and dismissal from work. As mentioned above, a reasonable figure of 150 realistic commitments of murders, 15 counts of murder were found guilty although he was caught only in the death of Kathleen Grundy, 81, in June 1998 when Angela Woodruff, the victim’s daughter had the suspicion over the possible forgery of the deceased mother’s will. This last murder case is the only known case where Mr. Shipman committed murder for the financial benefit for it was later found that Mrs. Grundy’s death was not because of the age but from a morphine overdose. Even before “Mrs. Grundy” case, the suspicion had been raised from the doctors at a surgery in Hyde regarding the counter signage for the request of numbers of cremation certificates from Dr. Shipman. Traces of morphine from the postmortem of Mrs. Grundy proved that he was guilty in the end and of how far he had gone extensively just to cover his tracks where he had succeeded in doing so for the previous murders by cremating the bodies. Therefore the case strongly points out the fact that under the name of law, it has become rather easy for something which initially was made for the betterment of the society but somehow had become a legal weapon of mass destruction of lives had it been passed to the wrong hands. Therefore this is one of the factors which prove that law should not allow for the right to die for the prevention of future misinterpretation and abuse. Neutral facts for the right to die: The law in certain countries such as Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Tokyo and Oregon under the United States of America has legalized and allow for the right to die. However, in most countries, having the right to die is still a controversial issue, as it tends to bring up a lot of conflicts and arguments as well as going against certain values such as morals, ethics and also the religion aspects. All religions strongly goes against the issue of allowing the rights to die as it had clearly state that no one has the right to take another person’s life including their own life. For example, from an Islamic point of view, humans are not made by themselves and they do not own their own bodies but they are given the trust and authority to take care of the well being of the particular body, health condition and to protect the body against any harm. On the contrary, most religions also believe that GOD owns the rights in giving and taking away human’s life and the activities of committing suicide or murdering is to be considered as a serious crime as well as a big Sin. The prospects of assuming a person’s life is not worth living and taking away a person’s life in order to be released from pain and suffering does not exist and it is unacceptable in the text of all religions as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide does not exist in the context of all religions point of view. It is dismissed as religiously unlawful. The patients who are in grave illness should receive support from the family and friends, including the doctor who is responsible for providing other alternative measures for the relief of pain. Looking into Hugo Claus’s case, he was a leading Belgium-Dutch writer who suffered from Alzheimer’s and requested his death to be by euthanasia which was legal at that time in Belgium but unfortunately his death was a controversial case in which it was strongly criticized by the Roman Catholic Church and the Belgian Alzheimer League. Although, Belgium legalizes euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, but looking into the religious point of view, it is illegal to end someone’s life or committing suicide because it is an unlawful thing to do. Looking at the ethnicity prospective, we could see that European-Americans tend to accept Euthanasia more compare to African-Americans due to lots of social and religious issues, as African-Americans are more conservative than European-Americans. African-Americans are three times more likely to oppose Euthanasia than European-Americans due to the lower levels of trust in the medical establishment. Among African-Americans, education correlates to support for Euthanasia. African-Americans with lower level education are twice as likely to oppose Euthanasia than those with higher education level. However, the level of education does not influence other racial groups in United State. Furthermore, some researchers tend to claim that African-Americans are more religious but that claim is difficult to be substantiated and defined. Therefore, we could not answer this controversial question, should the law allow the right to die based on the ethnicity prospective because different ethnics tend to have different perceptions. On the other hand, there is a belief of legalizing euthanasia will eventually lead to a widening of the range of allowing euthanasia. The legal recognition of Euthanasia would mean an acknowledgement of the right to die. This may lead to the further extend of such right to a duty to die particularly for the elders, infirm, deformed and mentally incapable persons within the society and yet, anyone who is a burden to society would be deemed those who have a duty to die as the medical bills to maintain them would be very high. Eventually, people might be chosen to die or live due to the aspects of saving cost on treatment of certain illness which might be very expensive. Based on a case named R v. Cox, Dr. Cox was a physician who had administered two ampoules of potassium chloride which had no pain relieving properties and was able to kill a particular person to his patient who was badly ill and had repeatedly requested him to end her life. Unfortunately, he was charged for attempted murder as opposed to murder because Mrs. Boyes’ body was cremated before Dr. Cox was reported to the police and charged whereby the actual cause of death could not be identified. However, Dr. Cox admitted that he had administered the drug but the primary intention was to relieve the deceased’s suffering as opposed to killing her. Eventually, he was found guilty as the jury stated that the first intention was to end the patient’s life as distinct from being primarily aimed at the alleviation of pain and suffering. From this case, we were not able to come to a conclusion because there were too many arguments on such cases looking at the different perceptions that people have and on what perspective we are looking at and the types of situations which occurred. Looking at the sanctity of life argument that has being advanced from either the religious or philosophical perspective, we will conclude that if euthanasia constitutes a grave sin as the right to terminate life lies solely within God’s choice would be based on religious perspective, whereas on the philosophical perspective, euthanasia is contrary to an individual’s fundamental right to life. Besides that, based on medical ethics perspective, physicians have the duty to treat his or her patients and to preserve the patient’s life in any acceptable way. As we can see, perceptions on euthanasia vary due to the values that a terminally ill adult and the society in which he or she lives in subscribe to. Besides that, in some countries like Netherlands and Belgium, the law allows for the right to die in which if an individual who wants to commit suicide or undergo euthanasia; it is possible for the individual’s life to be taken away if the individual wishes to. In other countries, the law prohibits the right to die in which, when a human is brought into this world, we are basically a creation of god and he had created us to live life until god takes our life away. Based on the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 2, it states that every individual or citizen living in the UK has the right to life in which, the law does not allow to take someone’s life away unless if the person has committed a murder. Under the Fundamental Liberties stated in the Constitution of Malaysia, Article 5 states that no person should be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with the law. The case of Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) who was suffering from “Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis” or ALS which was de-generating her health sought permission from the court to request assisted suicide because the disease was fatal and she would be in a vegetative state in a long run and will only be able to move her eyes. At the end of the case, Ms. Rodriguez loss the case by a 5-4 decision from the jury under the Supreme Court of Canada because assisted suicide is illegal in their country and because by assisting a suicide this will lead to murder and will jeopardize the other party’s life. In legal wise, the decision made by the jury is acceptable in such a way that, no one’s life should be taken away unless if the person has committed a murder and not by seeking assistance to suicide. In terms of morality wise, we felt that it is immoral to let someone suffer until the person’s death because at the end of the day the person is still going to die due to the illness which practically could not be cured. On the other hand, it is also to be considered as moral for that person to live because we do not know there might be a cure for the illness any sooner and by not taking that person’s life away, he or she might have the chance to live rather than die. Conclusion : As a conclusion, whether the law should allow for the right to die or vice versa all depends on the situation. As controversial as it seems, there is no good conclusion on what is right or what is wrong because different people have their different opinions and perceptions towards Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide. Some may say that they agree that the law should allow for the right to die but there are some also who disagree due to the different opinions and perceptions. Besides that, there are also some who says that it depends on the situation whether Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide should be practiced or not.
Yes, but only in certain cases, such as patients in vegetative states with very low possibilities of recovering. I also support it if a victim is terminally ill and wishes to die a quick and peaceful death, rather than a slow, agonizing one. But in the second case, the choice of whether or not to continue living should soley be decided upon by the victim, and not their immediate family members, or else certain individuals will abuse the act.
Well, the probabilities of recovering are merely probabilities. They may or may not miraculously get better or improve a few weeks later. Also, if you were terminally ill your state of mind would not be the normal and could lead you to make poor choices. Shouldn't we try to protect them from themselves?
Well, I say yes to euthanasia, but I can understand why it's illegal. Moral beliefs are just part of it, really. The other main factor is how abusable making euthanasia legal is. If it was legal, you'd probably have people dying that don't actually want to die. Like 60 year olds, who are rich, suddenly dying and leaving their child a huge fortune. And yet, on the other hand, if someone really wanted to die because he/she cannot stand the suffering anymore, it would be cruel to deny them of their right to die, if there's such a thing.
This is yet another copy and paste.... & i think this should be in the philosophy section?? As a law student I understand why the law is there as it is.. it is for the Human Rights that everybody wants. Yes, people are not allowed to make their own choices and to die through euthanasia due to a terminal illness of suffering and I do feel for them but if they are allowed to do it; but other people are going to act like they are suffering too and wants to die because they have nothing else in the world, or the fact they are lonely or even just through depression coz they are too lazy, is that a good action to take because they are too chicken to committ suicide? There are laws for people who are in vegetative state, from what i remember it is still murder if you pull the plug unless there was some sort of neglect or there was magically a powercut.... lol At the end of the day, this pile of crap that has been written up should be in the Philosophy section, not here, this is a homework section where people needs help.. And people wants to die, go and committ suicide, that phrase is there for a reason, if you don't have the courage to kill yourself, why go for euthanasia and give yourself an easy way out? (sounds insensitive but this world is cruel)
Absolutely,.if a person is just "suffering" in pain, during their last couple of Golden years, why NOT die with dignity? Just ask Dr. Krovekian, and he can xplain it to U !!
Actually I did read it and that's why I added the ZZzzZzzz. The better thing to do is short that 1/8 of its size. Everyone is answering the same portion.
No, you didn't. You saw the length of his post and gave no attempt to read it. And even if you did, you obviously could not think of a somewhat intelligent response and so therefore felt the need to plague a thought provoking thread with your idiotic post. Additionally, I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm going to assume this was some supported essay for school or something and therefore wanted some feedback and maybe some other ideas/insights to add to it. This is the School Work Help section, so no one is honestly going to answer/reply to this thread with the same word count as the OP in this case. If anything, we should only be answering 1/8 the same portion or else we would be actually doing his homework for him. Might I add that it was fairly rude of you to yawn at his post, if it was boring or uninteresting to you then you could have moved on to another thread. However, you decided, like I said before, plague this thread with your useless post.
He couldnt even put any effort into coming up with a name, so i doubt he will put much effort into responses... This dude cant help himself with the copy and paste
