Imagine sitting on the bedside of a loved one watching them suffer in everlasting, excruciating pain. The first instinct is to stop the pain, right? What if there were not any other options other than to end the person’s life? Should they have this right? The debate of legalizing physician assisted suicide and euthanasia has been fought for decades - making its first appearance as a national debate in Supreme Court. Advocates, such as myself see the fight for physician assisted suicide as moral, just as well as necessary. From a legal, religious and human rights standpoint the legalization of physician assisted suicide is justified for terminally ill patients.
Physician assisted suicide is defined as a process in which a physician is allowed to prescribe and deliver lethal doses of medication to a terminally ill patient with the request to die. Euthanasia is
…show more content…
This already declared constitutional right should guarantee the liberty of mentally competent, terminally ill patients with no chance of recovery to make their own personal decisions regarding the end of their life. There is also a contained allegation that the fourteenth amendment guarantees physicians the liberty to practice medicine with their best judgement. This would therefore include the right to prescribe meds to any terminally ill adult who has expressed and is ready to hasten death. Plus when the right-to-die safeguards are embodied in a law against causing premature death the burden of any proof would shift toward the prosecution side (Park 1). The essence of this argument is that, in court, if a case is debated the prosecution side -whom of which objects to allowing death of a patient - would have a difficult time justifying their standpoint. So with all this evidence considered, it should not be difficult to determine that these two justified rights guaranteed by our nation should include the approval of right to die