Halpanny and Newman 1998 wrote: In the final months of her life, Annie Lindsell’s struggle to be allowed to die with dignity became front page news, at the end of October 1997; she won a High Court action that allowed her doctor to administer potentially lethal pain-relieving drugs to prevent her from choking to death. This High Court victory opened up the debate on Euthanasia and the laws surrounding physician’s assisted suicide. Like Annie there are many people lying in our nation’s hospital simply waiting to die, since there are nothing humanly possible that can be done to save their lives. Many of them have a debilitating chronic disease that robs them of the simple tasks such as activities of daily living (bathing, eating, etc.) and ultimately their lives. Some of them can’t even breathe on their own. These patients are lying in our nation’s …show more content…
It will indeed ease the financial and psychological burden on the patient and loved ones. It gives the person their right to choose and it should be included in the law books of the CARICOM countries. Euthanasia, in its many forms, is an inherent right that should not be infringed upon through its not being legalized. “Euthanasia refers to choosing a dignified death, rather than one set for the individual, and in a slow and painful manner at that. When palliative care is no longer an option and treatment has failed time and again, the option to choose "the good death" should remain open at all times. Despite slight possibilities in a lack of responsible actions taken in the name of euthanasia, the act itself will always be a personal choice, based on the amount of suffering one will allow oneself to go through before one must give in. Euthanasia will always be in existence, now it is merely a choice of making it "acceptable" or "unacceptable" as far as the government is concerned. After all, whose life is it?” (Law