Commercializing Assisted Suicide Argumentative Analysis
When a system that allows for the use of assisted suicide is put into place, the next problem would be finding a way to stop it from being abused. If one were to analyze the possibility to expand upon the economic benefit of assisted suicide, society could implicate a form of commercialized assisted suicide. For a clearer understanding provided by Dr. Roland Kipke the author of Bioethics,” ‘Commercial assistance for suicide’ means that professional non-medical providers assist people in the implementation of their suicidal intents in return for payment”. (kipke) Dr. Kepke explains that although commercialized suicide is currently declared immoral, as a serious idea it's in no way far-fetched. “In Germany several legislative initiatives
…show more content…
have come to light discussing the concept of CAS [commercialized assisted suicide]” (Kipke). Although the only initiatives to pass have been in the negative of industrializing death, there are still groups that are arguing for Germany's leadership to reconsider. It is well known that Germany is a country to offer physician-assisted suicide. The reason that they have not made suicide commercialized is the fear that it will be abused. With approximately ten percent of any given population suffering with depression, German politicians rightly made the decision to not allow companies a reason to exploit mental illness. Referring to the concept of a perfect world, the idea of commercialized assisted suicide is not a bad concept. It would create jobs and serve as a minor economic benefit. Agreeably The world is not ready for CAS. Even though we are not yet ready for CAS, PAS is already available in many other countries. Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and some parts of the united states just to name a few. Although it's still in the progress of becoming well practiced worldwide countries such as France are working to implement it into their legal system. in an article by Revue Neurologiqu we are given an in-depth look how France as a country is going through the process of legalizing assisted suicide. This paper states that” French legislation on end-of-life care was recently changed when the parliament adopted law no 2016-87 on February 2, 2016, creating new rights for patients and persons at the end of their life.” (Aubry) It explains that like America, a large portion of the French population was against the concept of granting rights to those at the end of life. And again, just as in America, this has been an ongoing debate that has officially ended in favor of the right to choose.
Other countries have much a similar outlook on PAS as Americans do. With it still being such a touchy subject, it becomes time to acknowledge how many individuals have worked to push the legality forward.
According to CBS’s Crash Course the right to die act was started in order to aid in the death of people suffering. Thought the right to die act has been struggling to make astronomical difference since 1992, the support for it has done nothing but grown. Initially this act only included only Euthanasia for children with terminal illness but now includes all manors of Physician assisted suicide for those in need. Those who oppose the right to die act and what it stands for will often bring up the argument that “it goes against the rights of the person who is being euthanized or aided in the process of self-termination.” On this matter, there is no solid legalization that tells whether or not it is in their rights to kill themselves. But one of the more philosophical arguments in favor of assisted suicide, is arguing for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because of the natural rights that form a cornerstone in America’s foundation, many have begun to ask the question, “does a person have the right to self-terminate?”. PBS from November 13 2012 tells that It is a right, that most states deny. They explain that It is the right of the man to determine the path his life takes and therefore it should be the right of the man to determine the path of his death. Another PBS documentary tells the story of John Wells, a 66-year-old who had been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer. “John had always told his friends and loved ones that he would take his own life if he ever became incapacitated” (Navasky and O'Connor) After the state of Connecticut refused to aid him in his decision, John with the assistance of a longtime friend by the name of Hunt Williams took his own life. For the role Mr. Williams played in the death of Mr. Wells he was arrested on charges off second degree murder. In a retelling of the story Mr. Williams explains that he still fills as though he was in the right in giving his friend the opportunity to die as his friend saw fit. Although the state of Connecticut considered this whole turn of events to be illegal, actions such as those of John Wells are still common.
Aid in self termination is not always easy to find, but as mentioned earlier there is a profit to be made in commercialized assisted suicide. This is why there are organizations dedicated to non- physician assisted suicide. Because most states do not allow physicians to end their lives, many people look for options elsewhere. Companies like Final Exit Network and Compassionate Choices were created in finding alternatives to PAS. The Final Exit Network trains its members on the tricks and tactics to aiding strangers in killing themselves in a peaceful manner. PBS reports that because patients are not able to receive a peaceful death from medical professionals, they employ the tactics of network groups. Unlike the injection tactics used by positions, these companies like the Final Exit Network use less professional methods. The method mentioned form PBS was the application of helium tanks, and oxygen denial. It should be noted that CAS is completely illegal. But these companies have found ways to manipulate the law in their favor. With such a risk being taken it is only logical for PAS to become more accessible to the public.
Even with all points of logic pointing to the fact that Assisted suicide and Euthanasia should be legalized for patients suffering under specified conditions, there are still many who oppose the right to self-terminate.
A CNN article from November of 2014 Diane Coleman tells the story of Brittany Maynard. Brittany was a 29-year-old woman with a brain tumor. Diane Coleman is president and CEO of Not Dead Yet, a national grassroots disability rights group. (Coleman) In his article for CNN he expresses that terminally Ill people are vulnerable and should be kept alive, even if it is against their will. The primary structure for his argument is that “the idea of mixing a cost-cutting "treatment" such as assisted suicide into a broken, cost-conscious health care system that's poorly designed to meet dying patient's needs is dangerous to the thousands of people whose health care costs the most -- mainly people living with a disability, the elderly and chronically ill” (Coleman). In fairness, he has a point, but he is looking at the situation as though hospitals are not trying to make a profit. The mix up in his argument is simply that because PAS is cheaper more patients will be pushed to take it. The counter argument is that although PAS will be an option, there is no real need for the medical system to push it. According to the Seattle times on march 4th 2009 “about a third are opting out of providing assisted suicide, about a third have yet to decide and only about a third are allowing it.
(Tu)
In conclusion if a person of sound mind and solid reason wishes for their own death, they as a human being have the right to make that decision as they see fit. If the person is unable to make that decision for themselves without any ability to disagree with their Guardian. Then the decision should belong to the guardian who has been charged with the care over their life. Because this is a touchy subject and most arguments that surround the topic at hand are based in emotion, the best possible course of action is to acknowledge the logic side. With most arguments pointing to the affirmative side of euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is time that a civilized society gives their citizens the right to die on their terms.
have come to light discussing the concept of CAS [commercialized assisted suicide]” (Kipke). Although the only initiatives to pass have been in the negative of industrializing death, there are still groups that are arguing for Germany's leadership to reconsider. It is well known that Germany is a country to offer physician-assisted suicide. The reason that they have not made suicide commercialized is the fear that it will be abused. With approximately ten percent of any given population suffering with depression, German politicians rightly made the decision to not allow companies a reason to exploit mental illness. Referring to the concept of a perfect world, the idea of commercialized assisted suicide is not a bad concept. It would create jobs and serve as a minor economic benefit. Agreeably The world is not ready for CAS. Even though we are not yet ready for CAS, PAS is already available in many other countries. Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and some parts of the united states just to name a few. Although it's still in the progress of becoming well practiced worldwide countries such as France are working to implement it into their legal system. in an article by Revue Neurologiqu we are given an in-depth look how France as a country is going through the process of legalizing assisted suicide. This paper states that” French legislation on end-of-life care was recently changed when the parliament adopted law no 2016-87 on February 2, 2016, creating new rights for patients and persons at the end of their life.” (Aubry) It explains that like America, a large portion of the French population was against the concept of granting rights to those at the end of life. And again, just as in America, this has been an ongoing debate that has officially ended in favor of the right to choose.
Other countries have much a similar outlook on PAS as Americans do. With it still being such a touchy subject, it becomes time to acknowledge how many individuals have worked to push the legality forward.
According to CBS’s Crash Course the right to die act was started in order to aid in the death of people suffering. Thought the right to die act has been struggling to make astronomical difference since 1992, the support for it has done nothing but grown. Initially this act only included only Euthanasia for children with terminal illness but now includes all manors of Physician assisted suicide for those in need. Those who oppose the right to die act and what it stands for will often bring up the argument that “it goes against the rights of the person who is being euthanized or aided in the process of self-termination.” On this matter, there is no solid legalization that tells whether or not it is in their rights to kill themselves. But one of the more philosophical arguments in favor of assisted suicide, is arguing for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because of the natural rights that form a cornerstone in America’s foundation, many have begun to ask the question, “does a person have the right to self-terminate?”. PBS from November 13 2012 tells that It is a right, that most states deny. They explain that It is the right of the man to determine the path his life takes and therefore it should be the right of the man to determine the path of his death. Another PBS documentary tells the story of John Wells, a 66-year-old who had been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer. “John had always told his friends and loved ones that he would take his own life if he ever became incapacitated” (Navasky and O'Connor) After the state of Connecticut refused to aid him in his decision, John with the assistance of a longtime friend by the name of Hunt Williams took his own life. For the role Mr. Williams played in the death of Mr. Wells he was arrested on charges off second degree murder. In a retelling of the story Mr. Williams explains that he still fills as though he was in the right in giving his friend the opportunity to die as his friend saw fit. Although the state of Connecticut considered this whole turn of events to be illegal, actions such as those of John Wells are still common.
Aid in self termination is not always easy to find, but as mentioned earlier there is a profit to be made in commercialized assisted suicide. This is why there are organizations dedicated to non- physician assisted suicide. Because most states do not allow physicians to end their lives, many people look for options elsewhere. Companies like Final Exit Network and Compassionate Choices were created in finding alternatives to PAS. The Final Exit Network trains its members on the tricks and tactics to aiding strangers in killing themselves in a peaceful manner. PBS reports that because patients are not able to receive a peaceful death from medical professionals, they employ the tactics of network groups. Unlike the injection tactics used by positions, these companies like the Final Exit Network use less professional methods. The method mentioned form PBS was the application of helium tanks, and oxygen denial. It should be noted that CAS is completely illegal. But these companies have found ways to manipulate the law in their favor. With such a risk being taken it is only logical for PAS to become more accessible to the public.
Even with all points of logic pointing to the fact that Assisted suicide and Euthanasia should be legalized for patients suffering under specified conditions, there are still many who oppose the right to self-terminate.
A CNN article from November of 2014 Diane Coleman tells the story of Brittany Maynard. Brittany was a 29-year-old woman with a brain tumor. Diane Coleman is president and CEO of Not Dead Yet, a national grassroots disability rights group. (Coleman) In his article for CNN he expresses that terminally Ill people are vulnerable and should be kept alive, even if it is against their will. The primary structure for his argument is that “the idea of mixing a cost-cutting "treatment" such as assisted suicide into a broken, cost-conscious health care system that's poorly designed to meet dying patient's needs is dangerous to the thousands of people whose health care costs the most -- mainly people living with a disability, the elderly and chronically ill” (Coleman). In fairness, he has a point, but he is looking at the situation as though hospitals are not trying to make a profit. The mix up in his argument is simply that because PAS is cheaper more patients will be pushed to take it. The counter argument is that although PAS will be an option, there is no real need for the medical system to push it. According to the Seattle times on march 4th 2009 “about a third are opting out of providing assisted suicide, about a third have yet to decide and only about a third are allowing it.
(Tu)
In conclusion if a person of sound mind and solid reason wishes for their own death, they as a human being have the right to make that decision as they see fit. If the person is unable to make that decision for themselves without any ability to disagree with their Guardian. Then the decision should belong to the guardian who has been charged with the care over their life. Because this is a touchy subject and most arguments that surround the topic at hand are based in emotion, the best possible course of action is to acknowledge the logic side. With most arguments pointing to the affirmative side of euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is time that a civilized society gives their citizens the right to die on their terms.