Legalizing Assisted Death

832 Words4 Pages
When you had a choice between a slow, prolonging and a quick, instantaneous death, which option would you choose? When only presented with these two options, one would probably pick the latter choice - after all humans are not biologically designed to withstand prolonged pain and suffering. Hence it is why assisted death has been one of the most important yet controversial topics hotly debated over the centuries. The term should not be confused with Euthanasia (also known as “mercy killing”), which is a practice of ending a life painlessly, assisted by a third party. For example, if a physician (a third person) assists the death of a patient by giving a fatal dose of medication or injection etc, then euthanasia has taken place. On the other…show more content…
If a person has the right to live they would also have the right to die when they wish to. Of course this is a rather vague and blurry statement, which would raise questions such as: if assisted death is justifiable, it would give the impression people could just throw away their lives? But it is also wrong to condemn those who choose death over life, as the quality of a person’s life can only determined by themselves. One case was Daniel James, a Rugby athlete who suffered a spinal dislocation as the result of a Rugby accident, which he would have lived a “second-rate existence” for the rest of his life. He sought for assisted death in a euthanasia clinic in Switzerland. When a human’s body is no longer functional and slowly declining, relying heavily on artificial support and medication to barely be kept alive, they are no longer living a life but merely just living for the sake of it. For Daniel, to be paralyzed for the rest of his life and not being able to pursue his passion, rugby, is an agonizing torture worse than death. Even with the advancement of today’s medical technologies, it won’t fully eliminate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients. A supporter of assisted death, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this issue by saying that “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane…show more content…
Many are against it because of religious and moral reasons and would argue that death is not the only solution in today’s society. Since medical technology nowadays has had incredible breakthrough in prolonging the lives of human beings. Machines can support a patient’s failing organs and medicines can sustain a patient’s physiological well-being. From a religious point of view, assisted death is equivalent to suicide, which is highly condemned and is regarded as a sin. They believe that “life is the most basic gift of loving God-a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion”. Even if it is legalized in many places around the world today, there are many that are still strongly against it. Dr. Leo Alexander says that “the problem with euthanasia is the acceptance of an attitude that life is worthless, can be thrown away. That attitude is in its early stages right now, but as it progresses, so will our value of life drop. Anyone, the socially unproductive, the socially unwanted, will be considered useless; will kill off our own species, our morals. It is a way of mocking human life, turning ourselves into God, deciding who is fit to live and die”. Simply speaking, the legalization of assisted death is an act of legitimizing suicide and an inherent consent for killing. In addition there is a huge drawback, which people would start abusing this law and start committing murders
Open Document