Right to Die persuasuve speech for - Essay Example

Persuasive Speech – The Right to Die Introduction Attention Getter April is a young woman, who married three years back. 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 means for April’s baby? If today April decides to go full term with her cancer till the very end, her baby will have to be given up in an orphanage right about when he becomes most attached to her.

Importance of Topic:So, just imagine. Put yourself in April’s position and imagine what you would do in a situation like hers. 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.

State Thesis and Main Points: 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).BodyThere are so many arguments for mercy killing: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 many more benefits of car travel (Sokol, 2007). Just like this, mercy killing may seem like an unreasonable option but must be taken when the benefits of it are greater and long-term.

Thirdly, it is quite easy to differentiate mercy killing from all other forms of killing (Vaknin, 2003). As said earlier, it takes the concept of ‘mercy’ into consideration, and what is more giving than mercy? Therefore, euthanasia must be distinguished from killing, in that the intention is not to kill but to kill what lead to it. This argument focuses on the aspect of mercy in mercy killing.Transitions:Now that you and me are ethically conscious of the benefits of mercy killing for the patients and their families, it is easy to see why dying with dignity should be legalized.

In parts of Europe namely Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, euthanasia is already authorized by law (Sokol, 2007). In the United States, the state of Oregon also allows it. France supports passive euthanasia. There are many public organizations that support it, for instance the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity (ADMD) in France now has more than 40,000 members (Sokol, 2007)Conclusion:We have seen the arguments for mercy killing and we have seen how it really is not a form of killing but more an act of mercy and self determination.

Therefore, to conclude, it is about time it is viewed as a human right as expressed in the constitution rather than a form of killing. In the end, Giving preference to death is not easy but it has to be given when it is the right thing to be done. ReferencesVaknin, S. Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited. Narcissus Publishing. (2003).Fisher, I. “A Poet Crusades for the Right to Die His Way”. The New York Times. (December 20, 2006). Accessed December 8, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/world/europe/20welby.

htmlNewman, E. “Part Three: Local Perpsectives on the Right-to-Die Debateby Ed Newman” CP Interner. Accessed December 8, 2009. http://www.cpinternet.com/~ennyman/DAS-3.htmlSokol, R. “Essay: The right to die.” The New York Times. (March 21, 2007) Accessed December 8, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iht-edsokol.4978393.html?_r=1