Today, April is twenty one weeks pregnant with her first child. Also, today April has been fighting pancreatic cancer since seven years. Today, her doctors told her she has less than a year to live. Do you know what this…
Download file to see previous pages...
Imagine April dying in less than a year in a most horrible way, on a hospital bed while her baby is crying to be held by her and only her. Maybe she won’t even die. Maybe she will be living on life support. Imagine the trouble her husband will have in moving on if she’s just there and just how critical it will be, at a time like this, to move on, for the baby’s sake.
I’d like to talk about the reasonable acceptability of ‘rational suicide’, ‘euthanasia’, ‘mercy killing’ or ‘dying with dignity’. Each of these gives every person the right to die with dignity and gives them the authority to choose the time of their death and how and with whose help it should happen (Sokol, 2007). My main points throughout this debate will be focused around two major arguments – “Those two arguments are the mercy argument -- the notion of sparing someone unnecessary suffering -- and the self-determination argument, the right to determine ones own fate or level of care while dying.” (Newman, 1992).
First of all, many patients on respirators or life support systems are not conscious and so do not have the power to decide whether they want to live or die (Fisher, 2006). In such cases, families or doctors have to decide and do their best to relieve the patients and family members of pain. In such cases, mercy killing seems to be a great option for the patients, and a decision that they themselves must probably have made. Even when some patients are made aware of their life expectancy, they should be allowed to choose death as right of self-determination and choosing one’s own fate.
Secondly, there is a risk in everything but when the benefits outweigh these risks, a counter approach which is risky is still taken. For example, every time we travel in our cars, we risk the threat of accidents or being killed on the road. Despite the many deaths that take place because of road accidents, this risk is ignored, keeping in mind the
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
At this state, many people are choosing death and would not want their bodies undignified by the use of these machines. Some people are against the legalization of choice to die even if medical technology can prolong life. The opponents of the right to die include governments, Christian churches and organizations, who argue that no one has the right to decide when to live or die.
One of the most disputable issues is of the essence in this case; it lies within the question of what to do with the right to die. This is the way in which people see their lives being terminated. In this case, one of the ideas implies the ownership of people as to their lives even when death comes into perspective in this case (Smith, n.p.).
U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a speech in front of Islamic people at the Cairo University in Cairo, Egypt on June 4, 2009 addressing these two issues. He had expressed his concerns over these topics and urged the audience in helping him achieve his goal in a harmonious and peaceful coexistence between the U.S.
Euthanasia is probably one of the most controversial issues in the world today due to the legal and ethical considerations that surround it; many people and groups have taken divisive stands concerning this matter and universal consensus regarding the execution of this policy is yet to be achieved.
The idea of euthanasia is also not chosen by people because it is considered morally and ethically wrong by different religions. But euthanasia needs to be a personal choice of the individuals or the family members of someone who is in constant pain and has little hope of leading a life of quality.
One, there are beings who are although biologically alive, are not able to have a biographical life because of bodily processes. For example, an infant whose mental development has not yet fully started cannot process complicated thoughts such as what Rachels prescribed.
According to the paper over the years, there has been growing conflict between different ideologies, social institutions, groups and individuals as pertaining to the promotion or limitation of the freedom of expression / speech. Although the freedom of speech is regarded as one of democracy’s most cherished values, critics of the freedom of speech argue that absolute freedom of expression can end up permitting anti- woman and often hurtful, racist messages which have been crafted with the main objective of victimizing people.
However, Rachel’s argues the golden rule is not a perfect maxim considering that sexual perverts associated with fantasies of rape and treating others, as they would love to be treated compromise the golden rule. The results connected with the golden rule might not
1 Pages(250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Right to Die persuasuve speech for for FREE!