The concept of the right to die refers to the idea that humans have the right to make decisions about their lives, including voluntary euthanasia. A patient's wish should always be honored. As it stands, the person is solely responsible for making the decision, especially when in agony. While patients are in the hands of doctors, they should always be given the right to die. Notwithstanding the fact that it is always a matter of choice, the issue of euthanasia has always been contentious. In reality, voluntary euthanasia is respecting the patient's right to die. Despite having Physician Assisted Suicide as a highly debatable topic, it is still evident that the decision lies solely in the hands of the patient.
Factors in Favor of the Right to Die
To start with, observing a patient’s right to die puts an end to the great pain that the person in question goes through. It is apparent that some terminal diseases such as cancer are associated with great pain. In the most cases, the presented illnesses lack the requisite treatment that reverses the condition. The situation worsens as a patient goes through even more pain as the cancer cells develops. At this point, it is evident that the patient is the one who experiences the direct physical pain while the immediate family members go through emotional pain. During such an instance, the patient right to die should be respected to put an end to the torture and the undesirable experience that the patient and the family members go through. It is also a commonality that observing the patient’s death wish at this point will enable the individual to die in peace knowing that the death was their choice.
In addition, the right to die should be observed because it allows the patient to die with dignity. The issue of the voluntary euthanasia has been debatable for years. Observing the right to die is the only possible move to be implemented in the case of patients who suggest voluntary euthanasia procedure to be conducted. The procedure will allow the patient to die with dignity since the process will take place in the most suitable manner to them and their family. Evidently, in this case, the death will be made as painless as possible for the patient. On the contrary, if the doctors refuse or fail to conduct the procedure, it is apparent that the patients will only have to go through more pain and suffering ("Death Dignity." 21).
Moreover, the right to die should also be observed for terminally-ill patients because it is regarded as the most appropriate means of putting an end to the pain and the suffering which no drug can cure. Every terminally ill patient should be provided with a option of assisted suicide, granting the chance of making their own decision whether the procedure should be carried out on them or if they should only die a natural death. Providing the patients with the option of assisted suicide is considered to be in the best interest of the person in question. Despite the fact that medical technical has significantly gone through remarkable transition to prolong human lives, it remains a fact that no technology has been established to reduce the rate of suffering and pain, that the terminally-ill patients undergo. It is evident that in the past, the patients have asked their doctors to provide them with lethal medication focused on putting an end to their pain. Therefore, it is apparent that observing the rights of the patients to die is the most appropriate and convenient means of ending the patient’s life and putting and end to their suffering. In order to support this fact, McGee states that “Terminally ill patients should have the right to assisted suicide because it is the best means for them to end the pain caused by an illness which no drug can cure. A competent terminal patient must have the option of assisted suicide because it is in the best interest of that person” (McGee 671).
Furthermore, the patient’s right to die should be observed because when the assisted suicide is carried out as expected, it means the patient will cut down on the costs of healthcare and the unnecessary suffering that they go through as a result of their terminal illnesses. The right to an assisted suicide is an important liberty which cannot be denied to patients at this point. The presented fact is evident since patients at the presented position would want to utilize the presented right to pursue their happiness. The right to die is indeed a representation of the fact that a patient can still exercise autonomy despite their painful conditions.Apparently, it means that the patients can be provided with their freedom to make choices as wanting to die as human beings. Taking into consideration the sentiments of Dworkin, it is evident that “whatever view we take about [euthanasia], we want the right to decide for ourselves . . .” (239).
Counterarguments
The opponents to the topic on the right to assisted suicide have argued that the terminally-ill do not have a right to put an end to their suffering. The people on the opposing side have argued that the whole idea of assisted suicide goes against the Hippocratic Oath undertaken by doctors in participating in active euthanasia. The presented oath requires the doctors to promise to relieve the patients of their pain at all times without the administration of any deadly medication. Assisted suicide requires doctors to provide the patients with the medication to end their life within the shortest time in a less painful way therefore going against the oath’s provision. According to Price, Richard, and Keck “To use such measures in the terminally-ill, with no expectancy of a return to health, is generally inappropriate and is—therefore—bad medicine by definition” (880).
Conclusion
To conclude, the right to die is an efficient consideration that should be provided to terminally-ill patients. Based on the suffering and pain, the condition exposes them and their family members to, providing them with the option of assisted suicide is important for the patients as it suggests an increased level of autonomy for the patient. Furthermore, the right to die ensures that the patient’s suffering is put to an end without incurring any extra costs. It is, indeed, a way of letting the patients die with dignity. It suggests that the freedom of the patients to make a choice on their life is still observed at this point.
Works Cited
"Death Dignity." Australian Nursing & Midwifery Journal, vol. 24, no. 6, Dec2016/Jan2017, pp. 18-23.
Barbuzzi, Miranda. "Who Owns the Right to Die? An Argument about the Legal Status of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada." Penn Bioethics Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, Apr. 2014, pp. 16-20.
McGee, Andrew. "Me and My Body: The Relevance of the Distinction for the Difference between Withdrawing Life Support and Euthanasia." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 39, no. 4, Winter 2011, pp. 671-677.
Price, Richard S., and Thomas M. Keck. "Movement Litigation and Unilateral Disarmament: Abortion and the Right to Die." Law & Social Inquiry, vol. 40, no. 4, Fall 2015, pp. 880-907.
