Research_Paper

The Gift of Life The amount of care put into a life does not compare to worldly materials. The gift of life cannot be given, but can be taken away. Every living species is unique in every way. A severely handicapped or terminally ill person should have the right to choose to live or die. The right to choose to live or die should not only be a right allocated for bodied individuals of sound mind but for all human beings. Euthanasia is controversial issue which focuses on the morals, values and beliefs of our society. Euthanasia literally defined means “good death”. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is the intentional killing of a person by medical personnel either by a lethal injection or by denying ordinary means of survival. The act of euthanasia called “passive euthanasia” is committed by denying or with holding ordinary medical care to a patient. Currently, under United States’ law euthanasia is legal. It comes to be seen as practice for those whose “quality of life” is judged by themselves as worthless. A living will should be made when the patient is of lucid mind. In the United States, living will as legally binding document is one of the first necessary step required in legalization of euthanasia and the recognition of one’s right to their own life. Every person has the right to choose to live or die due to the right of choice. If a person is suffering while living, the being should have the capability to rest in peace. A doctor’s role is to save a life, but the death of one life can save many by the preserved organs. Assisting suicide should stay legal in the United States because of the right of choice, helps doctors to save many lives rather one alone, and mostly it prevents a tragic death of a patient. Many patients lose control of the function of their arms and or legs and become completed dependent. The question then becomes, “When does ones quality of life reaches such a low level of life then becomes not worth living'” The answer remains not to the government, but to the patients whom they feel suffering everyday with the disease. The government is not in charge of how a person should live or die. For the patients, they have a right of choice living in the land of the free. Clarietta Day is one that had an eagerness to die. There was no medicine of treatment on the face of the earth that had the capability to cure her disease. She had to live with fear of dying any moment. She was no longer feeling she needed to live. Her doctor believed in her decision, and so he injected pain killers and she died fifteen minutes later. The governments had no say, but then press charges against Dr. Gallant.  The pro-life movement rejects freedom of choice in all its insidious forms (Cartwright). Assisting suicide demeans the value of human life. The patients not only are handicapped for the rest of their lives, but in addition are handicapped to the option of ending not the government’s life but the patient’s life. The freedom of choice is a fundamental freedom and is what summarizes the United States constitution. The freedom of choice relates to how Clairetta chose to die in peace, and didn’t have to live a sudden death like as if the government wanted her to. Every living being dies sooner or later. Living is not a privilege, but it is a right. The government or society chose how the patient dies, but should only rely on the patients freedom of choice. A doctor’s role begins with being compassionate with their patients and should think what is best for the patient. Jean’s is a victim of an uncompassionate doctor. After deciding not to undergo further treatment for her recurring cancer, she could have died with dignity—if only someone could have assisted her death rather than let her wait, month after month, for her body to deteriorate enough for her to die (Fridstein). Although it was the doctor’s job to attempt to save a life, the doctor was not compassionate and assists the death to the patient and she had to live in fear and weakness due to the living disease. The far right wants to kill patients slowly and painfully by cutting the things we need to live, health care, public housing and transportation, etc. (Asch). The far left wants to kill patients quickly and call it compassion, while also saving money for others perhaps deemed more worthy (Asch). The majorities of people living in America today are in a financial crisis and cannot pay for health care insurance. If assisting death is legalize, the health care cost will become more affordable. Allowing the law can lead to many more lives saved. Health care is expensive, and some are incapable to pay for healthcare. The losses of lives that live only threw a machine or have no hope in living can save many other lives by making healthcare affordable. If a child is in need to be prescribed a not over the counter drug and is not legible because the child’s parents are incapable of paying health care, the child will be unhealthy and cannot be treated, but if the child had healthcare that the child could have afford, the child would be healthy and treated with care by the doctors. Nurses and doctors can pay more attention to savable patients rather than incurable patients. The patients that are curable can live longer than the people who are incurable suffering patients. If the incurable patients decides to die, the healthy organs of the patient can be preserved and help the patients that can be saved by the donated organs. It is difficult to find organ for a being that can be saved. Many can be saved using the different parts of the organ donated. The absolute role of a doctor is to save as many lives as possible. The doctors are capable to save many curable patients with the organs of an incurable patient. Society must put the needs of the living ahead of the people who want to die. Modern life has changed how we grieve as well as how we view death (Humphrys). Death should be a peaceful process one goes through, and not a slow and painful death. While the injection or pill last a moment. The therapy and stressful life is a long process that can cause a patient to suffer a long and disappointing life. Susan Wolf is McKnight Presidential Professor of Law, Medicine, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota and has written extensively on end-of-life care (Wolf). The author's father's battle with terminal cancer and related ailments caused him such severe suffering that he wanted to accelerate his own death (Wolf). Wolf’s father was in intensive pain and accelerated his pain. Instead of living a long suffering life, he wanted to cut his life shorter to remain remember the life he had and not go through any more pain. The doctors wouldn’t let him take his life. He stopped the medication and he failed to die quickly and overdosed. He suffered for the most part. He lived painfully, and instead of dying in peace he died tragically. The patients live to be one being in the world, but is there use of living if one does not realistically live. Living with a disease and not prescribing euthanasia can cause a stressful life.  Grief, a deeply private experience, has become public and superficial (Humphrys). Grief is a mental suffering and a law should not have control of if a grieving patient is suffering inside and has a complete desire. Suicide demeans the value of life. Life is precious and is taken with complete care, but death should be handled the same way. If a patient would like to die, society must respect the choice. No government has any control or law of how or when a person feels it is time to go. Jean suffered not be capable to take a pill that would kill her instantly. She suffered for the rest of her short life. Her decision should have been respected. The family and friends she had were affected by the decision from the doctor. Her friends suffered by watching her be different and slowly and painfully dying. End- of- life decisions are personal and should be respected (Humphrys). The law of allowing assisting death should remain a law because the amount of bondage in a dying patient is like when Moses and the Israelites attempted to run away from the pharaoh. Moses and his people were doubted by the Egyptian society that they can run away. Moses and his people achieved to run away. If Moses and his people could run away from the bondage and distress, then the dying patients should be able to even if society denies it to happen. A patient’s life and death should be taken with care and the allowance of euthanasia gives hope to be the same person before the disease. Assisting death should be taken care with a grand amount of thought and should not be taken lightly. The government should not be able to choose whether a person is deeply at no hope to live and suffer. Nowhere in the constitution where it says it is illegal to end a life when they feel they are ready. Where is the freedom' The right of choice is the overall base of the Constitution.  This basic truth—which finds political expression in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—means, in practical terms, that you need no one's permission to live, and that no one may forcibly obstruct your efforts to achieve your own personal happiness (Bowden). Assisting death allows the freedom of choice which is liberty. The right to life implies the right to death (Bowden). Most importantly the pursuit of happiness can be found with death and society should respect a person decision of euthanasia. True happiness is not based on a law, but dominantly through the peace at mind of a patient, person, and being one living being of the world. Work Cited Asch, Adrienne. "The Wish to Die Is Based on Social as Well as Medical Issues."Assisted Suicide. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Recognizing Death While Affirming Life."Hastings Center Special Report (Nov.-Dec. 2005): S31-S35. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 May 2012. Bowden, Thomas A. "Individuals Should Have a Legal Right to Choose Death."Assisted Suicide. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "After Ten Years, States Still Resist Assisted Suicide." Ayn Rand Institute, 2007. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 4 June 2012. Cartwright, Gary. “Failing to Allow Assisted Suicide Results in Unnecessary Tragedies.” Assisted Suicide. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Current controversies. Rpt. From “Last Rights: Shouldn’t We Be Able to End our lives However and Whenever We Want'” Texas Monthly (Oct. 2009): 98- 106. Gales Oppossing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 May 2012. Fridstein, Margery. "It Is Merciful to Help a Terminally Ill Person Die." Assisted Suicide. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Lessons in Dying: What Is Wrong with Giving Up When Our Bodies Give Out'" Denver Post 28 Nov. 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 May 2012 Humphrys, John. "End-of-Life Decisions Are Personal and Should Be Respected."The Right to Die. Ed. John Woodward. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Rpt. from "Chapter 15: Last Words." The Welcome Visitor. London, United Kingdom: Hodder & Stoughton, 2009. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 May 2012. Wolf, Susan. "A Slow Death Is Better Than the Burden of Assisted Suicide." The Right to Die. Ed. John Woodward. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Rpt. from "Confronting Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: My Father's Death."The Hastings Center Report 38.5 (2008): 23-26. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 May 2012.