The Right To Die By Steve Chapman Analysis

Avoiding Death’s Pain
The general argument made by Steve Chapman in his work “The Case for the Right to Die,” is that when someone who is terminally ill, knows that they are dying, they should have the right to end their life before they enter major pain. Therefore, Chapman believes that assisted suicide should be legalized. Chapman points out that a year after the memorable death of Brittany Maynard, the California legislature approved a bill to permit assisted suicide. Brittany Maynard had to move to Oregon to die peacefully. Oregon is just one of the five states that assisted suicide is legal. Chapman himself wrote, “Before the Oregon law took effect in 1997 , critics - I was one of them - feared it would put pressure on patients to kill themselves, warp the practice of medicine, dry up hospice care and put the poor in jeopardy.” Basically, Chapman is saying that residents of Oregon including him, are scared of what was going to happen when the law was passed. Later on Chapman had seen that the outcome was not so bad. He then reports that the state only has 4 million residents. Therefore, not many people in the state have made use of the drug. However, of the patients who have access to the drug, only 61 percent use it. Chapman then focuses on abuse of the drug. When you have a really powerful …show more content…
On the other hand, when the drug is used to skip the pain of death and is only used for the terminally ill, I guess it is alright. The major reason I dislike the idea of a drug that can kill someone is that how it will be abused. If the drug were to be legalized in states with large populations and known drug trafficking, the drug would most likely be produced and sold behind the government’s back. The drug would be sold illegally to teenagers who suffer from depression and are suicidal. As shown above, the only reason I disagree is the fact of