As suggested by this argument in favor of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, the right to die, although it should be a natural right granted to all wishing to die with dignity, is hotly contested. Although seventy-five percent see that such an act would be acceptable, the fact that only 12 percent discussed it with their doctors is not, as this study suggests, because they are not considering it as a viable option to end their pain, but because of the stigmas attached to euthanasia (legally, socially, politically, and spiritually speaking). In short, it is time to shed the negative connotations the word “euthanasia” carries, get rid of the stigmas, and allow people the only relief they can truly have from terminal and incredibly painful conditions.
Aside from offering freedom from pain and an undignified death that is prolonged and/or difficult for the patient and his or her family, the other serious issue that is a factor is that of freedom. In the United States, we pride ourselves on the wide range of freedoms that impact our daily lives—the right to speak freely, to live without threats, to pursue our own happiness—but what is happiness for someone with a terminal condition who is being forced to live through the pain because the same government that allows other freedoms denies this one? For some reason the ability to make a valid argument about euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is stunted when the right to die is involved. Given the results of the study about opinions about the right to die mentioned previously, “the fact remains that it is the beliefs of a minority of the population that prevent the majority from having access to the good death that assisted suicide provides, access which it is clear from opinion polls that they want and to which they should be entitled on the grounds of respect and compassion” (Doyal 65). This right to die a dignified death—a feeling shared by a clear majority—should be at the forefront of concerns and debates rather than issues that do not have any direct bearing on the lives of those suffering at this very moment with no recourse. In order to preserve our rights as human beings, it is necessary to stand up for this one because it is a matter of the preservation of someone’s right to choose his or her own course, happiness, and ultimate fate.
Although they are present the minority viewpoint in the United States among cancer patients and some members of the general public in terms of the argument over the right die when it is physician assisted euthanasia, the opposition contends that allowing euthanasia will lead us down a dangerous road. “The moment we begin to define who can and cannot die, we are ultimately leading ourselves to new questions of who should and should not die. This is the same reasoning behind the eugenics movements and argument that spawned such horrors as the Holocaust” (Dworkin 177). This is a classic example of a slippery slope argument, which is not the most sound basis for an argument yet nonetheless has to date had an impact on policy decisions regarding the right to die.
It is difficult to think that allowing people who are in serious pain will eventually lead to mass slaughter, but this argument sways many because of the inherent fear we have of repeating history, particularly history from some of mankind’s darkest moments. While this argument on assisted suicide or human euthanasia presented here is certainly not concerning deciding on who lives and who dies and instead argues in favor a patient’s right to choose, it is nonetheless useful to examine the opposition to see if there are any potential drawbacks to allowing euthanasia.
In sum, the argument against the legality of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are often based on speculative theories that do not have the weight of scientific, statistical, or other data to back them up. On the other hand, there is a wealth of material, both opinion and otherwise, that indicates that there are a great many people who are suffering from pain caused from terminal conditions yet are forced to live out the rest of their lives in an undignified and unwanted way. The only way to live up to our constant promises of freedom in this country and the only way to offer those dying in ways that many of us cannot fathom unless we have seen it firsthand is to offer this one hope. Not to do so would in itself be inhumane and it is not worth the sacrifice of forcing these people to live against their will for the sake of speculative theories that rely on logical fallacies that are common to begin with, especially in a debate that is so heated and is so reliant on issues of personal feeling and sentiment as opposed to hard and fast scient..
Other essays in the Arguments Archive related to this topic include : The Positive Aspects of Physician Assisted Suicide • Biomedical Ethics and God: A Lack of Universals • Right to Die Issues : Rationality over Religion • The Multifaceted Argument for Advancing Stem Cell Research • An Argument in Favor of Capital Punishment • Argument in Favor of the Use of Animal Research
Annotated Bibliography for “Argument in Favor of Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide” on Next Page ►
