Assisted Suicide

Task A.

Assisted suicide

1)
The issues presented in text 1 and 2 are concerning the same subject, though they have a different view on the matter. Should we as a society, be able to bend the current laws in a way that it would be legal for a terminal ill patient, to commit voluntarily suicide?
This is a common debate in the modern society we live in, as the progression of healthcare and medicine now makes people live longer - whether they like it or not. In these two texts, pros and cons for legalising medical suicide for some patients are discussed, with a touch of personal involvement, and therefor the texts are also subjective.
The author of text 1, Nina Lakhani, is presenting some of the positive sides of assisted suicide.
She uses quotes from Tony Nicklinson, a man suffering from locked-in syndrome due to a severe stroke, who is fighting for his right to a “dignified death”. When reading this, it seems perfectly logical, and ethical appropriate for this man to be able to end his live when he wants to.
But this case raises a larger ethical debate on this matter. Do we really have the right to die?
This is the question raised in text two, written by Allison Pearson, who does not think that we have the right to. Allison Pearson argues that “death is no longer considered an acceptable outcome” among doctors, and that a change in the laws of murder could have tremendous consequences, and that we would likely end up in a courtroom where any doctor could justify a murder on his patients with “But he wanted me to end his life, your Honour”, and this is, of course, concerning. Besides that she also argues different problems concerning a change in the laws, such as the doctors becoming executioners, and that no man should be in charge of another man’s live.

2)
In this text, the author uses her personal insight on the subject to discuss and analyse what consequences assisted suicide could have, and this gives the reader the opportunity to relate to the subject. The article uses a personal conversation with an old friend as the point of departure. “We need to have a conversation about assisted suicide” is what her fried said to her, and the rest of the article presents the thoughts that were kick-started by this sentence. Vicki Woods first realised one thing. That she would, and could not, help her friend, even though she loves her deeply. She would not be able to carry the responsibility for her, and her death. This makes you as a reader question if you would be able to take such responsibility yourself. Is anyone mentally strong enough to cope with such, literally, fatal matter? And should they?
Vicki Woods thinks that she would be able to help, but only her own family. But she also realises what ethical problems that could lie beneath this “help”. She writes about another friend, whose mother was dying 10 years ago, and asked for her children to help getting her to a clinic in Swiss where she could die in a decent way. “The family was sharply divided by the request: The daughters were in favour, while her son was set against” This is a perfect example of how a family could be devastated by this moral question. The mother, so desperate because of years of painful suffering, eventually pressed them so much that they signed the papers and sends her to the clinic in Swiss.
This experience must truly have left the family with deep wounds, and scared for life by the way their mother left them. This makes you, as a reader, ask the question, is this really a way to leave your family? And would a change in the laws of murder leave even more families devastated by the loss of loved ones, who had forced them to basically murder?

3)
Throughout reading the texts on assisted suicide, you get the perception that there are both good arguments for and against assisted suicide. In text 1, it is mentioned that the author feels that he is being denied his most basic right as a human, when society is telling him that he must die of natural causes. The author thinks that the religious talk about life being “a gift from god and only he can decide when a person’s life can end” is utter rubbish. And this seems fairly logical. We live in a society that tries to separate laws and religious matters, which makes the abovementioned argument rather invalid, when it concerns laws.
With that said, it would be a sad truth if assisted suicide would be a common solution, and where would the boundaries be? Could we end up in a society where it is socially, and legally acceptable to commit suicide for example financial reasons, or due to a depression?
It is still important that we cherish the lives we have, and that we do not fall in to despair and decides that suicide is the only solution.
In text 1, Tony Nicklinson mentions that his Twitter sensation has made him feel more connected to the world and that he is amazed and flattered of all the attention he has gotten, but even besides that, he says that “being on of the Twitterati, is insufficient to make me change my mind”. The thing we should focus on here, is not that he is still determined to die, but rather the fact that there is something that is insufficient to change his mind. Because this means, that there is possibly also something that could be sufficient to change his mind. This is the thing we should focus on. Helping the suffering, giving them back their desire and possibility to live, rather than just putting an end to their misery.