Persuasive Essay On Assisted Suicide

The debate over whose decision it is to uphold a human life is one with a vast range of opinions. Some believe it should be up to God, whereas others assert that it is the right of an individual; however, the ultimate verdict rests in the hands of the government. When tragedy leaves a victim in critical condition with no assurance of recovery, circumstances do not allow for a straightforward action plan. In any state of affairs, it is optimal to continue the life of a patient, even if it seems as though the ideal solution is death. Medical practitioners, relatives, and patients themselves do not deserve the pressure to decide this grave fate. The choice between life and death should not exist. Every human is entitled to the right to live, and

Medical workers and healthcare officials regard the practice with thoughts that clash just as much as the rest of society. Moreover, placing the ability upon a doctor is completely inadequate. Not only does it put the doctor in an uncomfortable position, an assisted suicide case can easily trickle into the category of murder. A Dutch doctor, Henk Prins, faced criminal charges when he ended the life of a terminally ill infant, despite his pure intentions and approval from numerous physicians who agreed with his action. He had consent from the baby’s parents as well as evidence that she would only have a couple weeks to live, noting that no operation would improve her condition. After the infant’s life was ended through drug administration, Prins was convicted of murder (Worsnop, 1995, para. 151-152). The murky water surrounding assisted suicide has made it difficult for the action to be carried out legally, forcing virtuous doctors behind bars. Many state laws prohibit physician assisted suicide under broad conditions. Furthermore, even if one’s actions are permitted by state law, they are not necessarily protected by federal law, which declares that, “the state’s law against physician-assisted suicide [is] unconstitutional” (Worsnop, 1995, para. 5). Doctors play a vulnerable role when it comes down to the details, and

Babies clearly cannot comprehend the situation they face. A child should have the opportunity to live and fulfill the life that they have been granted. Limiting one’s life simply because it currently does not promise prosperity is an action that cannot be pardoned. The proper measures must be taken to ensure the longest life possible for children. Babies who become extremely ill at a young age deserve the opportunity to have a life. The chance that their lives may be hindered by the strain of medical attention and complications does not vindicate the choice that they should die, because there is hope for a prosperous outcome. According to Kathlyn Gay, assisted suicide “…ignores the possibility that a person’s life might be improved…” (Gay, 2016, para. 2). By eliminating the chance of proceeding any further, there is no way to know what could have resulted, and that is what makes the choice of death morally wrong. Regardless of age, it is unfair to terminate a life when one is incapable of expressing his or her aspirations on the