Trent Shelton once said, “The right decisions are always the hardest to make it. But they must be made in order to live the life you deserve.” In Anaheim, California on January 1, 2014, it was discovered that Brittney Maynard had brain cancer. In fact, she had only six months left to live. Of course, Ms. Maynard wanted to have the choice of ending her own life because of the situation she was in. In order to benefit from Oregon’s ‘Death with Dignity law, Ms. Maynard moved there. As a result, she ended her life by consuming the prescribed drugs by her doctor on November 1, 2014, with her family members as witnesses there. Euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient’s life by a doctor (February 12, 2020). Active euthanasia is using death-causing means to bring about the death of a patient while passive euthanasia is withholding or withdrawing treatment and letting a patient die (February 12, 2020). Finally, physician-assisted suicide is when a doctor prescribes a lethal dose of medication and the patient administers it to herself/himself (February 12, 2020). In this paper, I will argue that I morally approve of California’s decision to legalize physician-assisted suicide by showing the advantages that euthanasia gives.
J. Gay-Williams would not approve of California’s decision to legalize physician-assisted suicide because active euthanasia is being used to kill people. J. Gay-Williams's stance is that active euthanasia is intrinsically and extrinsically wrong (February 12, 2020). Argument one is the Argument from Nature states that active euthanasia violates human nature (February 12, 2020). Premise one declares that human beings have a natural goal (drive, desire) to continue living (February 12, 2020). Therefore, humans have this natural fight or flight response which means that in times of danger, we have an instinct to protect ourselves. Our bodies have a natural response as well such as the antibodies to prevent invaders from entering one’s body. Premise two notes that active euthanasia is the killing of human beings (February 12, 2020). This is because one is killing the opportunity of possibly having one’s life last longer. Conclusion One reveals that active euthanasia harms our natural goal to continue living (February 12, 2020).
When people want to end their lives by force, active euthanasia would be used like what Ms. Maynard decided to do with her life. Premise three is anything that harms our natural goals is wrong (February 12, 2020). Conclusion Two makes known that active euthanasia is (intrinsically) wrong (February 12, 2020). Hence, J-Gay Williams declares that letting people die would be the right way to end their life. Argument two is from the Argument of Self-Interest. Premise one points out that modern medicine is fallible: terminal diagnoses and prognoses can be mistaken (February 12, 2020). Modern medicine is not perfect for everyone. That is why there are possible side effects that one must take into account. Premise two emphasizes that modern medicine is also constantly progressing: new treatments are continually developed (February 12, 2020).
Nonetheless, new medications and treatments are still being discovered and invented that will help prevent or stop different diseases or illnesses. Premise three makes known that spontaneous remission also occurs sometimes (February 12, 2020). Miracles happen. There may be someone that had a terrible illness and one day, she is cured without any side effects. Premise four announces death is final and irreversible (February 12, 2020). In this world that we live in currently, when someone dies, they die. So, death cannot be undone. The conclusion is active euthanasia has the potential to work against our own interests (February 12, 2020). Therefore, there are other alternative solutions such as medications and miracles that can be used instead of active euthanasia in order for one’s pain to end. Conclusion two is that active euthanasia should not be performed (February 12, 2020). Argument three is from Argument from Practical Effects.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Premise one notes that doctors and nurses are committed to saving lives (February 12, 2020). Thus, the medical field is being utilized in order to rescue lives with a goal for a patient to have another chance to live. Premise two reveals if active euthanasia is permitted, it could corrupt this important commitment (February 12, 2020). In other words, active euthanasia does not give the opportunity to live once again. The conclusion is active euthanasia should not be permitted (February 12, 2020). J. Gay-Williams tries to point out that if the person dies, let it be because their body is unable to hold on anymore. He argues that the person should die if there is no other cure possible in order for that person to live. As a result, physician-assisted suicide holds back the opportunity for people to possibly live longer. James Rachels would approve of California’s decision to legalize physician-assisted suicide because James Rachels declares that active euthanasia is permissible (February 24, 2020). According to the American Medical Association, active euthanasia is prohibited, and passive euthanasia is permitted (February 24, 2020). Therefore, letting the person die is allowed but not killing them. Rachel believes that sometimes once a decision has been made not to prolong life, it is better to actively euthanize the patient rather than let them die (February 24, 2020). For example, in the “Down Syndrome Babies,” these babies are born with Down’s syndrome.
Because of this syndrome, there are babies that may not be able to withstand the pain. For this reason, it is better to just euthanize the baby so it does not feel the pain anymore. There are three options: always save the baby, if no surgery, then active euthanasia baby, or if no surgery, then passive euthanasia baby (February 24, 2020). For this reason, it is better to just actively euthanize the baby so it does not need to endure unbearable suffering anymore. That is why active euthanasia would be humane while passive euthanasia would result in the baby just feeling the pain. Rachel emphasizes that killing is not morally worse than letting die (February 24, 2020). On that account, actively euthanizing the baby would be equal to letting the baby die. Altogether, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide will give the victim the opportunity to terminate their misery.
I would approve of California’s decision to legalize physician-assisted suicide because everyone has the right to make their own healthcare decisions. There are people who have terminal illnesses. They may be on the verge of death but have not died yet. While the loved one of the person with the illness may want the ill person to live, it is important to think about the ill person’s situation if they were in your shoes. For example, my friend’s grandma died using active euthanasia. Of course, it is normal for loved ones to grieve when their loved one dies. It is a human instinct. In my friend’s case though, her grandma was bedridden for many months. As much as the family would love to have the grandma be with them longer, they can see the pain the grandma was trying to endure minute by minute. As we age, our bodies grow weaker naturally. One day, the grandma just gave up. She could not withstand the pain anymore and she wanted to do physician-assisted suicide. Thus, she informed her doctor and her family. Both were fine with it because the grandma gave a good fight. Physician-assisted suicide law should be legalized and euthanasia should be a freedom of choice if a person does decide to do it because it is that person’s own life. Because it is your own life, you should be the final decision-maker on what to do with your life. All in all, euthanasia can help one’s wish be fulfilled. While many may believe in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, there are some who may still object to this option. Some may morally disapprove of California’s decision to legalize physician-assisted suicide. There may still be people that may argue that physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are wrong because one is killing themselves. In addition, the family of the person who died will be sad as well because that loved one will not be with them anymore. However, we have to respect the patient’s quality of life. The patient has the right to be free from pain and suffering both emotionally and physically. Under Barclays Official California Code of Regulations, a patient has the right to “(4) receive information about the illness, the course of treatment and prospects for recovery in terms that the patient can understand and (5) receive as much information about any proposed treatment or procedure as the patient may need in order to give informed consent or to refuse this course of treatment.
Except in emergencies, this information shall include a description of the procedure or treatment, the medically significant risks involved in this treatment, alternate courses of treatment or nontreatment, and the risks involved in each and know the name of the person who will carry out the procedure or treatment.” If the patient becomes incapacitated and there is no advance directive made, the responsible party will be the one to make the decision on behalf of the patient. It can be the husband, wife, parents, or immediate family members. Therefore, California’s decision in legalizing physician-assisted suicide is a befitting decision. Without the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, people will not have the freedom of choice to finish their journey.
Work Cited
- View Document - California Code of Regulations, govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID94FF500A39711E08822C131FF5E2170?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc. Default).
Stuck on your essay?
