FREE ESSAY ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

ASSISTED SUICIDE

DAT NGUYEN
ENGL: 100
A RIGHT TO DIE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED
Forty-one year-old Peter Cinque was in the terminal stages of diabetes. He was blind, had
lost both legs, and suffered from ulcers and cardiovascular problems, as well. He was
being kept alive by a kidney dialysis machine. Then one day he asked his doctors to stop
the treatment. As a conscious, rational adult, he had the legal right to determine what
should or should not be done to his body. But the hospital authorities refused to honor
this right until he had been examined by two psychiatrists to test his mental competence.
After this, the hospital obtained a court order that required him to continue with
dialysis treatments. A few days later, Mr. Cimque stopped breathing. He had suffered from
brain damage and was in a coma. Only after this and two court hearings in the hospital
that he was finally permitted to exercise his constitutional right of self-determination
(Ogg 61). What an unfortunate incident. Mr. Cinque was forced to prolong his suffering
due to a lack of guidelines to ensure the right of self-determination. For this reason,
euthanasia must be legalized in a way that individuals to decide for themselves what
should or should not be done to their bodies. That is, laws must be strengthened and
guidelines must be set to ensure the right of euthanasia will not be denied to people.
The case for euthanasia is justified on three fundamental moral principles: mercy,
autonomy, and justice (Battin 18). First, there is principle of mercy. This means that
one ought to relieve pain of another and that it is a doctor's duty to relieve pain and
suffering for the patients. Granting mercy sometimes require euthanasia, both by direct
killing and letting die. Moreover, allowing doctors to end the life of terminally ill
patients is more merciful than allowing them to die slowly and painfully. Second, There
is the principle of autonomy. That is, euthanasia is an individual's choice. It is the
right of those who have a desire to be free from pain and total dependence on others to
end their lives. The degree of pain experienced by one can never be fully appreciated by
another. Thus, no one can decide for another, and no one can take a choice away from
another. Third, there is the principle of justice. Euthanasia is central to the liberty
protected by the fourteenth amendment (Leo22). Again, every human being of adult years
has the right to decide what should be done with his body. This also applies to
terminally ill patients who are especially in need of choices. They are at a situation in
which they must be allowed to decide for choices. They are at a situation in which they
must be allowed to decide for themselves. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional to deny
them the freedom of choice in which every body else has. It would be a crime to deny them
this right because they are at the mercy of other people. 
A lot of the terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering by death are denied
by doctors and hospitals and, sometimes, the law itself. Medical authorities often have
to consult courts when it comes to the issue of euthanasia. They fear of the
responsibilities because they lack concrete guidelines to exercise euthanasia. This only
results in prolonging the suffering of the patients. According to Isaac Asimov, "If a
person is subject to pain that won't stop as a result of a disease that can't be cured,
must he or she suffer that pain as long as possible when there are gentle ways of putting
an end to life?" (62). It is absurd to put terminally ill patients through painful
treatments unless they choose to, when euthanasia is available as an alternative choice.
Too often, because of hospitals and court delays, many terminally ill patients are forced
to prolong their suffering.
Opponents of euthanasia contend that life is too precious for anyone to decide to end it.
Cardinal Bernardin, arguing against euthanasia, states, "As individuals and as a society,
we have the positive obligation protect life...not to destroy or injure human life
directly, especially the life of the innocent and vulnerable" (70). Another opponent of
euthanasia, Ph. Schepens, wrote, "A society in which the individual can exist only if he
is wanted by others, and who therefore ceases to have absolute value" (26). In other
words, they claim that euthanasia would lead to devaluation of human life because it
would force medical professionals and patients' families to judge the worth of other
lives. However, their views are invalid. On the contrary, forcing hopelessly ill patients
to continue their suffering and total dependence on others would be devaluation of human
life. It is demoralizing for many of these patients to be in such a situation of
continuous pain and helplessness. Recall Peter Cinque's incidence at the beginning of
this paper. If anything, his life was devalued. He was forced to suffer even more
severely because he was denied his wish of dying to end his pain. Had he been granted his
wish in the first place, he would not have to he through this torture. Terminally ill
patients like Mr. Cinque will eventually die, and most of the time will be a painful
death. It would be much more honorable to human life to respect these patients' wishes
and give them a choice to end their pain by euthanasia. This is not to say that they
should be forced to choose death as a method of pain relief. Those who choose to fight
their illness until the end should be respected in the same way. 
The opponents of euthanasia also use the "slippery slope" argument to speak against
euthanasia (Leo 22). This argument claims that once euthanasia becomes acceptable for the
terminally ill, it would become acceptable for the less seriously ill, the handicapped,
the mentally retarded, and the elderly. The opponents fear that it would get out of hand,
and unjustified deaths would be uncontrollable. This view, like the previous one, is too
blindly exaggerated. It is for these reasons why laws must be strengthen to ensure the
right of euthanasia, not to omit euthanasia, completely, The laws that protect the
people's right to euthanasia will, at the same time, protect the people's right from
euthanasia. It is not about getting rid of the unwanted people of society, but it is
about a necessity of choices for people who need choices, such as the terminally ill. 
Thus, it is necessary to have euthanasia legalized. This would allow competent patients
to decide for themselves how they prefer to be treated. They could decide for themselves
whether they prefer to either fight their illnesses with painful treatments or to end
their suffering by euthanasia. Patients like Peter Cinque would not have to be forced to
suffer. They would be allowed to determine their own destiny and worth. More important
so, terminally ill patients could have an alternative choice available to them when their
pain is becoming unbearable. The point is that they should be allowed to decide for
themselves, when they are conscious or are incapable of deciding for themselves. Then
their families and doctors can decide on their behalf.
The opponents of euthanasia suggest that instead of having to legalize euthanasia, better
pain relief would make euthanasia unnecessary (Peterson 19). However, the fact is that
pain is not the only reason why people seek euthanasia. Many incapable patients fear the
lost of control of their bodily functions. They are overwhelmed by the feeling of
hopelessness and mental anguish. Thus, reducing the pain alone cannot solve the problem.

Other opponents of the legalization of euthanasia suggest moving all terminally ill
patients into a hospice where they can be cared for (Schofield 28). In a hospice,
patients are visited, read to, and kept in constant contact with loving people. Doctors
can care for the medical need of the patients and attempt to keep pain at a minimum. The
opponents claim that a hospice would also make euthanasia unnecessary. Sure, this plan
will benefit those who do not want to go through euthanasia, but what about those who
do?. Patients will still be totally dependent on others and forced to prolong their
suffering. There are always those who would rather die than be totally dependant on
others. Why not just let them die to end their pain and suffering, and why not just let
them die peacefully with dignity?.
When euthanasia is legalized, terminally ill patients will have the choice to end their
suffering and die with dignity. Those who wish to go through euthanasia will not have
this right denied to them. They are free to judge their wom lives and free to exercise
their right of self-determination. When euthanasia is legalized, patients will not be
forced to have their pain prolonged due to court hearing or due to hospital
bureaucracies. Lpatients do not have to feel that they are at the mercy of thers.
Furthermore, doctors will be free from the burden of providing medical care to patients
who are hopelessly ill, especially patients who wish to discontinue painfull treatments.
Yet, legalizing euthanasia does not mean that society would force pople to die when they
are incapable or when they get old. People would simply be granted an alternative choice
other than having to go trough prolonged and painful treatment.
It is now clear that euthanasia is a right that cannot be denied to people. But in order
to ensure that this right is not denied to people, our legislatures must take action.
They must provide concrete laws to ensure that terminally ill patients have the ritht to
choose. They must provide concrete guidelines for medical authorties to act upon.
Moreover, we as citizems need to urge our legislatures to strengthen the laws to support
euthanasia. We must stand together and speak out to let them know that a right cannot be
denied to us. We need to have euthanasia legalized so that we have this choice available
to us when needed. And for those who are hopelessly ill, legalizing euthanasia will allow
them to end their suffering and die with dignity.
Bibliography
WORKS CITED
Asimov, Isaac. "No Mercy." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. 
Ed. Neal Bernards. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. 62.
Battin, Margaret Pabst. "Euthanasia Is Ethical." 
Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Neal Bernards.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. 17-23.
Bernardin, Cardinal Joseph. "Protecting Life." Euthanasia: 
Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Neal Bernards. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. 70. 
Leo, John. "Assisted Suicide's Slippery Slope." U.S. News 
and World Report 16 May 1994: 22.
Ogg, Elizabeth. "Euthanasia Should Be Legalized." Euthanasia:
Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Neal Bernards. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. 61.
Peterson, Lynn. "Would Better Pain Relief Make 
'Elective Pain' Unthinkable?" Washington Post 12 July 1994: 19. 
Schepens, Ph. "Law of the Jungle." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. 
Ed. Neal Bernards. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. 26.
Schofield, Joyce Ann. "Euthanasia Is Unethical." Euthanasia: 
Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Neal Bernards. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1898. 28.