Doctor-Assisted Suicide Argumentative Analysis

1338 Words6 Pages
The opposition, the affirmative side, declares that it is the right of an individual to choose how to control their own body. Philosophers and right-of-final-exit advocates suggest “it is not intrinsically wrong for someone with a terminal disease to kill herself… [and] it is not intrinsically wrong for physicians to assist someone with a terminal disease who has reasonable grounds for wanting to kill herself” (Gill, 2005; Darr, 2008; Sussman, 2013). The arguments behind this position deserve careful consideration. One of the most important arguments is a reducio ad absurdum claim that these advocates make. They argue that the right to control one’s own body is a crucial right (Boaz, 2007; Law, 1996). The right to control one’s own body, they argue, is the root of the right of freedom of speech (since it involves controlling one’s mouth and one’s hands), the right to control what medication one can take, and one’s reproductive freedom. They argue that taking away the right to physician-assisted suicide actually empowers the government to euthanize the mentally disabled, or engage in forced sterilization, or so forth. Their point is that the person’s control of the body must be absolute or else it risks the state controlling the person. Pathos is a major part of this…show more content…
The fact is that the government saying that people can choose to end their own lives actually does open up the door for other forms of euthanasia. The best way of preventing government from taking a stance on euthanasia is by making government the absolute defender of life. The government says that the premature taking of a life in any circumstances aside from rare exceptions like self-defense (where a life is being put against another life) is criminal. Whether it is the person ending their own life, getting a physician to do it for them, or ending someone else’s life, it is
Open Document