Argument essay on a controversial issue with supporting evidence

Assisted suicide should be legalized. There is no rational argument against it, only cartoonish arguments based on superstition and feigned morality. In the real world, we all must die, and there is no case, either moral or intellectual, that one can make to argue that we should not have the right to control our final moments. Over the course of this essay, I will illustrate in no uncertain terms that the right to die with dignity is a right reserved for the individual alone, and that no amount of interference on the part of external parties -- especially not those who are entirely unaffected by the death in question -- can be justified.

The American Medical Association (2013) frames the issue as one of ethics. It deems the issue as a threat to "the very core of the medical profession's ethical integrity." It argues that physician-assisted suicide is "fundamentally inconsistent" with the physician's professional role. This is a gross mischaracterization of the role of physicians. Physicians do not exist to save and prolong lives -- they exist to serve the needs of their patients and to make their lives better. Yes, prohibition of doctor-assisted suicide is in the Hippocratic Oath, but doctors today do not worship Apollo. At what point does the AMA, or any other professional body, have the right to pick and choose what elements of the Oath are sacred and what can be discarded? To do so undermines the AMA's use of the Oath as a crutch on this issue.

The AMA has predicated its stance on the absurd notion that death can be avoided. It cannot, and terminally-ill patients recognize that. They realize that when one is near death, there is no further contribution that they make to the world. How the patient chooses to deal with that reality is entirely their own choice to make.

The New England Journal of Medicine highlights another stance, that assisted suicide creates a slippery slope. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, rejected outright as a legitimate rhetorical device. What may happen at a future date is entirely speculative. That an esteemed publication as the NEJM is willing to resort to such rhetorical weakness to support its position shows just how tenuous that position is. Many within the medical establishment -- to say nothing of the superstitious among us -- are unable to address the question of assisted suicide directly and honestly. They must resort to arguing with the straw man who lives on the slippery slope (Ertelt, 2013). They know that their convictions -- while strong -- are not rooted in logical analysis of facts.

The facts are clear. We have built a society on a strong foundation of individual. We have rights of liberty and life, and all of Western society is built on the idea of free will. That will and those rights extend right from the moment of birth until the moment of death. We do not lose our fundamental human rights -- the rights our ancestors fought for and which are inscribed in our Constitution -- once we are diagnosed with a terminal illness. Physicians also have rights -- they can choose whether to assist people with suicide, or not. But for those who do, there is no logical reason that they should not be able to pursue their task.

For those who are afflicted, the right to die in a manner they control is fundamental. They have, by the time they are to make this decision, only their basic human rights. At that point, they are likely stripped of all else -- health and dignity among the things they have lost. They are in a position of constant suffering, and that suffering will only end with death. Death, for the terminally ill, is not only inevitable but it is pending. The AMA suggests that palliative care is sufficient. For those about to die from horrible illness, there is little to expect from palliative care but drug-induced numbness. This denies them the ability to say goodbye on their own terms, but rather to drift into death in an opiate haze.

For general society, the issue should be even clearer. The right to liberty grants people the right to live and make their choices without interference from others. It is not for you or I to say what choices people can make. We are free to have opinions on the matter, but we have no right to deny the rights of any other person, and especially not on the one decision that person has left. There is also a grain of hypocrisy in the view that drugging people to relieve pain until they die is the morally right position. If this is not the morally right position for those addicted to heroin -- many of whom turned to drugs to alleviate pain in their lives -- then why is it the right choice for those with terminal illness? The hypocrisy is galling.