You have the right to Die
...fy the patience’s diagnosis with a terminal illness” (79). The concerns of abuse of euthanasia are understandable but for the most part they are baseless, the same could be said of every law, as Torr uses the word of a euthanasia activist Barbara Dority to best explain the situation: No law can ultimately guarantee that coercion will never occur. Likewise, there is no guarantee that all forms of coercion have been eliminated from a host of other life decisions and situations…. But shall we curtail our available choices because we don’t believe people can always make them for the right reasons or because we fear possible abuses? (79). Dority is arguing that we should not have to give our rights because we are afraid a select few might abuse their rights. That is like saying that we should stop giving out driving licenses because some people might drink or drive or some people might peddle drugs. Of course, there are laws passed against that and even carry heavy jail time if convicted but that does not ensure it will not happened, so why should responsible people suffer for the actions of a few. As Torr explains it “Doctors and lawmakers should do everything possible to prevent abuses, but it would be wrong to deny the options to everyone bases solely on speculation that they might occur. With freedom comes responsibility.”(79). An individual’s choice to end their lives is not always a sign of hopelessness or giving up on one’s life; rather it gives one even more control over their life: Many patients are not ready to die but want the assurance that they will be able to achieve a dignified death if their condition worsens. As one author explains, Permitting doctor-assisted will actually prolong some patients` lives. What patients often want is not so much the ability to die but the knowledge that they have control over the timing of their death… This is already evident in Oregon—although fifteen people ended their lives with the help of a physician in 1998, an additional eight received prescriptions for lethal medication but chose not to use them. Again this shows that euthanasia is about autonomy and patient control, not just fear of suffering. Far from showing a lack of respect for life, by legalizing voluntary euthanasia society would demonstrate respect for the decisions people make about their lives.”(Torr 81-82) This quote shows that patients who want the right to end their lives are not necessarily cowards but want it as an option and by legalizing euthanasia, we as a society will not be condoning suicide but recognizing and respecting a human beings choice even though we might not believe or agree with their decision. It is much like religion, we all have our own faiths and beliefs and most people can respect that and do not tell people of other religions how to live. It is the same with euthanasia, even though one might not believe in euthanasia themselves, but one can not tell other people if to believe in it or not. When one talks about euthanasia one can not let the ethical and the moral questions go unaddressed. I believe life should be respected and lived to the fullest, but I do not have the right to tell a person who is in their death bed, in pains that I cannot pretend to know. Take Lillian Boyes for example, she was the seventy-year-old Englishman who was dying from a terrible form of rheumatoid arthritis, discussed earlier in this paper. The disease was so painful that the strongest pain killers could relieve her of the pain, even when her son touches her with his finger she screams with pain. Who in this world can explain to Lillian Boyes that it would be morally and ethically wrong for her to end her own life? After all of what she has been through Lillian Boyes must be of strong conviction to even believe in god. How do men of moral and ethical reasoning explain what has happen to Lillian and how do they explain to her that it would be morally and ethically correct to stay in this painful situation until her “natural death.” The fact is no one has the right to tell people what to do in this situation because they can’t possibly know what the patient is going through. If someone believes that they have enough faith and believe they are strong enough to endure all this pain, then so be it but they can not force this on to another human being who does not hold the same beliefs. In this country people are allowed to choose their own religion, now let’s let people practice their own beliefs. If a major religion in this country believes that euthanasia is against their religion, that’s fine but why do they need it to be turned into a law, don’t they realize that other people have their own beliefs that might be different from the major religions philosophy. By trying to translate their religious beliefs into laws they are infringing on the various rights of an individual. As Mr. Torr puts it “Allowing people to die in the manner of their choosing is consistent with the American concepts of individual liberty and limited government, as envisioned by the founding fathers.”(58). Of course euthanasia is not explicitly mentioned in the constitutions but the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states, “The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I think their needs to be an amendment in the constitution legalizing euthanasia because there are many people who do not believe in it and want to impose their religious beliefs on others. People who are against euthanasia say that euthanasia is like murder and people who help other people die should be tried in a court of law like murders. But according to Torr “Laws against murder can be justified on the grounds that murders causes harm to the victim” (61). The same can not be said of euthanasia and assisted suicide because the individual has carefully analyzed his or her situation and came to conclusion that “death with dignity” would be more of a benefit than harm. Laws that are against euthanasia have no real constitutional grounds but are based solely on the beliefs of the dominant religion and that in itself is against the constitution as Prof. Dworkin explains: “The Constitution does not allow states to justify policy on grounds of religious doctrine” (61). This rule is in the constitution to keep the separation of church and the state but this has apparently not stopped some people to do it anyways. Although most of this paper has been about individuals and their choices, but know I want to talk about if the patient is incompetent in some ways to make a decision, what if the patient in a coma or a vegetative state. It would be hard to determine what the patient wants even by talking to close friends or family because the things the patient might said about euthanasia were out of context and at that points the patient probably did not know the gravity of the situation they might be in one day. I think the way to deal with is let the individual decide what death means to them, do they think death is when the brain is not working or when your heart stops beating. By having this information before hand we can make a good judgment on what the patient wanted and act what accordingly to the patience wishes. These definitions of death should be decided by the individuals themselves so they can avoid any philosophical conflicts between the government and the patient. The reason why euthanasia should be left to the individual is because naturally they would do what they think is best for them. Asking people who never have been in the situation in question to decide what the best course of action will be would produce unrealistic and inaccurate re...