Should the right to die be an option for those who are terminal? There gets to be a certain point when even the toughest pain meds and strongest drugs just do not cut it. In rare cases like these, do individuals have the autonomy to make the decision to end one’s life?
The right to die is a moral principle that is based on beliefs that one has the right to undergo a voluntary euthanasia. Now many would argue that the right to die only harms one’s self, or would fall under an Ulitarian attitude. However, suicide has long term effects on those around you, such as friends, family, spouse or children. But watching a person deteriorate because of a sickness could do synonymous damage.
As an individual the impact is quite simple; they have the …show more content…
In Oregon, she decided that this would be the best decision for her family and her. She used her illness and the media to get funding in the support or legalizing the Death with Dignity law in the states that it was currently still illegal in. Brittany Maynard said “I’m choosing to suffer less. To put myself and my family through less pain.”(Caplan.)
The argument asks if this is truly ethical. This permits doctor to assist the terminally ill to die on their own terms and some say that we should not be the ones determining that. “God should do so.” When we allow assisted suicides, we set up the poor and disabled to eventually be abused. In Brittany Maynard’s case, she knew she was dying. That was inevitable. But Maynard was fully aware, along with her family that she would die after taking the lethal pills.
A way that might be beneficial in the decision of assisting in suicide would be to have a panel of doctors and psychologists determine that the patient’s decision is 100% the right choice. That way when the patient does decide his or her fate, there are experts and evidence that this is the only way for them to discontinue the suffering. As far as the truth to all this, well that’s quite simple. The truth is regardless of politics, Brittany is not suffering anymore. Whether right or wrong, she was able to make that decision and since her death, man others now
The right to die is a moral principle that is based on beliefs that one has the right to undergo a voluntary euthanasia. Now many would argue that the right to die only harms one’s self, or would fall under an Ulitarian attitude. However, suicide has long term effects on those around you, such as friends, family, spouse or children. But watching a person deteriorate because of a sickness could do synonymous damage.
As an individual the impact is quite simple; they have the …show more content…
In Oregon, she decided that this would be the best decision for her family and her. She used her illness and the media to get funding in the support or legalizing the Death with Dignity law in the states that it was currently still illegal in. Brittany Maynard said “I’m choosing to suffer less. To put myself and my family through less pain.”(Caplan.)
The argument asks if this is truly ethical. This permits doctor to assist the terminally ill to die on their own terms and some say that we should not be the ones determining that. “God should do so.” When we allow assisted suicides, we set up the poor and disabled to eventually be abused. In Brittany Maynard’s case, she knew she was dying. That was inevitable. But Maynard was fully aware, along with her family that she would die after taking the lethal pills.
A way that might be beneficial in the decision of assisting in suicide would be to have a panel of doctors and psychologists determine that the patient’s decision is 100% the right choice. That way when the patient does decide his or her fate, there are experts and evidence that this is the only way for them to discontinue the suffering. As far as the truth to all this, well that’s quite simple. The truth is regardless of politics, Brittany is not suffering anymore. Whether right or wrong, she was able to make that decision and since her death, man others now