Choosing Death Should Be A Choice

Choosing Death Should Be a Choice
If a person is terminally ill or seriously injured, end of life care may be required to ease that patient’s suffering and make dying as comfortable as possible. Some people are planners and think ahead in case of times of illness or emergencies and make a living will or advanced directive. According to the Mayo Clinic “Advance directives guide choices for doctors and caregivers if you're terminally ill, seriously injured, in a coma, in the late stages of dementia or near the end of life” (Mayo Clinic Staff). Other people may be caught by surprise when a tragedy or unexpected illness strikes and find themselves in a position where they want to end their suffering. Currently only five States allow for Physician-Assisted
Someone planning a living will has a number of priorities in mind; these ”include being free of pain and psychological stress, having control over decisions about their care, avoiding treatments that prolong their deaths, and not burdening their families” (Alfonso 43). These priorities don’t change when someone is at the end of their life, but hasn’t planned ahead. Having the option of Patient Assisted Suicide will help to ease the patient’s mind that their death can be on their terms. As Rachels points out “active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia” (78). It is much more compassionate to give the patient what they want, and let them choose their own death. As Peter Singer points out in his paper, “if beings are capable of making choices, we should, other things being equal, allow them to decide whether or not their lives are worth living” (529). If we are applying the theory of Utilitarianism to the morality of active versus passive euthanasia, we must look at the consequences of the actions. In both cases, the patient ends up deceased, therefore the final consequences are the same. If a patient is terminally ill and suffering; for the purposes of this example, we will say that this will both produce the greatest good and reduce suffering, because the patient will be at peace. If the patient is given the right to choose active euthanasia, or PAS,
That is probably why the topic of active versus passive euthanasia is such a hotly debated topic. However, looking at it through the lens of a utilitarian’s perspective, it becomes quite clear; there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. “If patients can rationally opt for an earlier death by refusing life-supporting treatment or by accepting life-shortening palliative care, they must also be [considered] rational enough to opt for an earlier death by physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia” (Singer 538). Despite any objection from those seek to muddy the waters with semantics over the difference between “allowing nature to take its course” and “mercy killing”, a terminally ill patient should legally have access to Physician Assisted Suicide, and be able to choose their own