Assisted Suicide of Gregory Rodney - Research Paper Example

? of affiliation: ASSISTED SUICIDE Gregory Rodney loved life. But Gregory Rodney could not take in the pain anymore and now he wanted to die more than anything else. As a researcher, he had spent the previous thirty years studying the uses of X-rays, a factor that exposed him to his present problem. Now, his body was being tortured by skin cancer. He had lost his right arm, his nose, three fingers on his left arm and part of his jaw. The condition had also made him blind and it was getting worse with time. The once jovial man was now experiencing unrelenting pain that could not allow him rest. Doctor’s report that indicated he would live for another year made it even worse. Confined to his bed where he lay with teeth clenched to indicate the unbearable pain, he begged to be helped out of his gloom. Gregory wanted so bad to die that moment. His request fell on deaf ears. Then, one day, Gregory brother Arnold, unable to ignore Gregory’s insistent plea, went to home, retrieved a .30 caliber gun from his drawer, drove to the hospital, shot and kill his brother. Arnold was later tried for murder(ProCon.org). Medical field has realized significant advancement, thanks to the technological field, that has allowed medical specialists to save more lives than ever before. Medicine has made available means to treat or lessen agony of persons suffering from diseases once considered terminal or painful. In the same line, however, medical technology offers us the chance to sustain the lives (or, others would term it, delay the deaths) of: persons whose mental and physical abilities cannot be restored, persons whose deteriorating status cannot be stopped and persons whose pain cannot be eradicated. Even as medicine tries to draw more and more suffering people from the edge of death, the cry seeking to mercifully end lives of tortured and deteriorating patients continue to grow louder. For instance, the California State is asking its residents to drum up support for a program termed “the Humane and Dignified Death Acts” ( Forman, 47). This act seeks to make it legal for physicians to end the life of terminally ill patients if requested by the patient, and having followed a legal procedure. This law will make some alteration to the existing law which does not consider suicide a crime, but instead holds tough measures for those assisting in suicide. Whether or not to enact legislations sanctioning "assisted suicide" is unending discussion that has and will always generate an intense moral controversy. Most countries in the world have come open to oppose this act with the World Medical Association and AMA taking the lead. On their part WMA hold the view that “Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient’s own request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness.” (LifeNews.com) Proponents of laws that legalize assisted suicide argue that all persons posses a moral right to freely decide what they do with their individual lives, only that they should not interfere or cause harm to others. This school of thought has it that free choice goes as far as the right to terminate one's life if such a person wishes to do so. In the case of most individuals, the right to terminate one's life is an easy exercise; however there are others who desire to die, but the conditions they are in makes it impossible for them to cut off their lives with dignity( Balkin, 36). This people suggest that such people should have their wish to exercise their right to life granted whenever they request. Supporters of this idea further assert that we ourselves should be at the fore front to alleviate suffering and pain of other human beings. This thought also suggests that we should endeavor to respect their dignity. Talking a walk in our hospitals today, one will find individuals afflicted with unbearably painful and terminal diseases and conditions. These conditions have rendered them permanently unable to function in a dignified human way. People faced with such difficulties have nothing to hope other than to anticipate lives full of more degradation, suffering and deterioration. In this case, the proponents argue that when such people plead for merciful termination of their suffering in a dignified manner, it is inhumane and cruel to deny ignore their pleas. On the other hand, those who oppose any measure supporting assisted suicide, insinuate that society carries a moral obligation to care for and preserve life. Here, it is argued that allowing people to help others end their own lives will be a violation of the fundamental duty we hold regarding respect for human life (Merinos, 14). A society that takes serious its duty to preserve and protect life gives no room to ideas that will allow people destroy lives. Further, challengers of assisted suicide assert that society carries the power to oppose laws threatening innocent people’s lives. It is obvious that laws sanctioning assisted suicide pose such threats. at this point one can pose an argument as to ‘ if assisted suicide is permitted based on the need to show compassion or mercy, what will stop us from “assisting in” and probably actively influence, the death of persons whose life we consider undesirable or worthless? What will stop the inconvenienced relations of a patient from influencing him/her to “willingly” request to be killed?( Engdahl, 76-78) What should we expect of patients who, once having agreed to end their life by signing relevant documents, later develop a different idea, but, for not being able to speak or communicate cannot make their change of mind known? And, once we give into the idea that only life rated on particular standard is worth living, what will be our limits? It is important to know that a choice to devalue one life only means that we have devalued all lives. We should also ask questions like who will talk on behalf of people who are totally handicapped, infant and the senile women. Lastly, it is suggested that supporting assisted suicide would out rightly violate other people’s right. In this case, it is vital to consider the plight of many doctors or even nurses who might find themselves “pushed” to take part in a patient’s suicide (Young, 64). While trying to meet the desires of a patient requesting to be killed, it is unfair to compel others to violate their deeply held convictions. In conclusion, assisted suicide offers a powerful case that always appeals to our capacity to show mercy while supporting individual’s decisions and self determination. On the other hand, the case opposing assisted suicide also bring out powerful argument since it addresses fundamental reverence that should be considered when dealing with people’s lives. Further, it deals the myth that most of us have fallen into thus going down a slippery slope where we slowly lose our long held respect for life. With many legislations being proposed, the society should be well prepared to make a decision on the values they would prefer to uphold. Here, I would suggest that individuals life be kept sacred and only terminated if every other possible measure has failed completely. Works Cited Balkin, Karen. Assisted suicide. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Print. Engdahl, Sylvia. Assisted suicide. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Print. Forman, Lillian. Assisted suicide. Edina, Minn.: ABDO Pub. Co., 2008. Print. "International Perspectives - Euthanasia - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2013. . "LifeNews.com." LifeNews.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2013. . Merino, NoeI?l. Assisted suicide. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Print. Young, Mitchell. Euthanasia. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Print. Read More