Assisted Suicide Should Be a Legal Right.

Assisted suicide should be a legal right. The grounds for this claim include the fact that modern medicine has made it possible to extend life artificially, allowing for people to survive beyond their body's capacity for wellness. Other grounds for ensuring the rights of citizens to death with dignity include the essentially libertarian underpinnings of American society. Currently, only the states of Washington and Oregon allow physicians to assist patients with a dignified death. The United States cannot dictate laws related to assisted suicide in other countries, but can set a normative precedent that highlights the need for more compassionate and wise approaches to ending a life. The primary arguments against assisted suicide are religious ones, which have no place in determining American law. Scare tactics related to assisted suicide can easily be dismissed. There are several ways that doctors can be trained and supervised so that no assisted suicide becomes malevolent.

Medical marvels allow for miraculous recoveries from illness, accidents, and disease. However, modern medical technologies are also permitting people to suffer needlessly for indefinite periods of time. Forcing someone to who cannot function in the world, due to debilitating and painful conditions, is immoral and unethical. Persons like Tony Nicklinson who have "locked-in" syndrome are currently fighting for their rights to live and die with dignity (Topping and Jones). Anecdotal evidence proves that assisted suicide should be a legal right, as the purpose of medicine is to heal and help and not to prolong suffering. Medical paternalism is hindering the rights of patients. Humphry acknowledges "the right to die in a manner and at a time of their own choosing" as a core component of a liberal democracy.

Of course, there are limitations to assisted suicide that should be addressed within the healthcare industry. A person with a temporary condition might cry out to be relieved of his or her suffering. In those cases, the doctor cannot ethically assist in a suicide because there is no need to die. As Humphry points out, "Persuasion or provocation to the act of self-killing are deplorable and should be punished according to relevant laws." A doctor should consult with a team of healthcare workers as well as the patient and family members. This will ensure that all cases warranting assisted suicide are treated on an individual basis. No one should die who is not yet ready.

The primary argument against assisted suicide hinges on a different moral argument than the one used in favor of death with dignity. An opposing view suggests that death is a negative thing, and that life is qualitatively better. This view is ignorant of the gamut of human experience, for all persons do eventually die. The life a person lives should be as good and enjoyable as possible. Andre and Velasquez note that views against assisted suicide call upon "a fundamental reverence for life and the risk of hurling down a slippery slope toward a diminished respect for life." It is easy to rebut this claim, however. Assisted suicide supports even greater reverence for life than does a taboo against it. This is because assisted suicide values the quality of life over the quantity of years spent alive. The slippery slope argument can be rebutted, also. It is essential to ensure a system of checks and balances within healthcare that prevents untimely deaths or physician persuasion of patients and their family members. Moreover, assisted suicide may be only carried out in circumstances in which the patient is already participating in palliative care (Humphry).