Introduction
Any kind of freedom that does not involve absolute freedom is only a facsimile of freedom. Therefore, a free society that does not provide its citizens with legal options for death as and when they would desire to die cannot per se be considered as a free society. It is important to state from the very advent that the instant legal options to die does not mean making death an easy choice for citizens. Rather, it means providing a legal mechanism where people who feel that they no longer want to live, for example, because they are battling a terminal illness can have a lawful option to end their lives (World Health Organization, 2017). It would also be important to state that providing a legal mechanism for people to die may not encourage people to opt to die. After all, it is almost impossible to stop someone who is determined to die from dying. The availability of the legal option as canvassed in this research paper entails there being an option that such people can follow and if the process is satisfied, then the law can allow them to die in peace and with dignity. As this research paper will establish, a right to die law is mandatory for a free society as it is ethically wrong to force free people to live, while they would rather be dead.
Background Information
By definition, right to die laws/death with dignity laws means legal provisions through which lawful citizens can be allowed to die at their own terms including through assistance from healthcare officers. In most cases, these laws are geared towards terminal patients having conditions that might not kill them immediately, but will eventually definitively lead to their deaths (World Health Organization, 2017). The laws provide a choice where these individuals can elect to lessen their pain, suffering and the financial burden of their treatment by electing to die sooner, rather than later. By extension, right to die laws/death with dignity laws can also be applied to individuals who feel that they have given up on life due to a number of reasons. For example, a person who has a physical illness that although not terminal, makes them unproductive, such as a spinal injury can be allowed to die (Tomlinson & Scott, 2015). It is important for the purposes of the argument herein that the laws do not provide a carte blanche for people who do not want to live, to die, but rather procedures for where such a death can be termed as legal.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Right to Die Laws are Necessary for Terminal Patients
Among the fundamental and definitive reasons why the right to die laws should be enacted is because those suffering from terminal illnesses need an option to escape their suffering. Millions of Americans are diagnosed with terminal diseases annually. Some of these patients are then forced to endure the pain, expense, and indignities of constant ailment while they are well aware that they will never heal (Tomlinson & Scott, 2015). Some people have been forced to use all their savings to treat terminal illnesses when the money could have otherwise been used productively, such as in educating their children. When these individual run through their savings and have still not died yet, they are forced to endure the indignity of poverty, exacerbated by the limitation and vagaries of their illness. Among the worst of these vagaries is facing chronic pain while unable to afford pain medication, yet there is no hope for a cure (Katz & Johnson, 2016). A right to die law would save the dignity of such individuals by allowing to die in their own terms.
The Laws Would Reduce Suicides
A right to die law should also be mandatory for any community because it would change the lives of many potentially suicidal people. According to the center for disease control and prevention, the rates of suicide in the US have risen by 30% since 1999. More importantly, 54% of those who commit suicide do not have a known mental illness, which makes a plausible intervention difficult (CDC, 2018). Millions of dollars have been spent nationally on advertisements that seek to encourage potentially suicidal people to call toll-free numbers and ask for help but this has not mitigated in the problem of suicide in America. Among the reasons why suicidal individuals do not seek help is because they know that seeking help has the definitive outcome of their suicide efforts being thwarted. If there is a law that allows people who justifiably want to die, to legally end their lives, many potentially suicidal people would elect to seek help before they end their lives (World Health Organization, 2017). The process of seeking help would then be combined with counseling that would enable suicidal people to forego their intended suicide.
The Contrary Religious Argument
It is impossible to canvass the subject of the right to die without considering the religious perspective based on the argument that live is sacred and only God is allowed to take a life (Qin, 2017). An overwhelming majority of Americans belong to one of the three Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all of whom hold the opinion that suicide is sinful and against Gods laws. It is based, mainly on this understanding that the issue of the right to die laws have generally been supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives, mainly with the support of religious leaders (Qin, 2017). The belief that taking life is wrong, based on a religious belief is a noble one and also have the advantage of being the belief of the majority. However, the First Amendment of the USA provides for freedom of conscience which has been variously interpreted to include freedom of religion (Schonthal et al., 2016). The majority cannot infringe on the rights of the minority by making religious belief the basis for laws that are universally applied. The right to die must be considered with the same approach as the issue of abortion and sexuality in that the law should be flexible enough to allow everyone to exercise their faith. It would also be important to state that suicides are still high in America in spite of the nation being overly religious. Hence, the lack of a right to death law based on religion has been counterproductive. Basing a universal law on the religious belief of the majority must be considered as a breach of fundamental freedom (Schonthal et al., 2016).
Conclusion
It is clear from the research above that right to die laws are not only necessary but also a means of saving more lives than it might end. For a start, a right to die law does not universally allow people who want to die to unilaterally take their lives. Instead, it provides modalities where people who want to die can have their intent vetted and if found to be valid, then they can be provided with a means to die with dignity. Such an avenue would be crucial for some segment of the population, more so those who are suffering from terminal diseases or those whose quality of life has been diminished by non-terminal illnesses. Those found to have valid reasons for desiring death can lawfully be allowed to die with dignity. The laws would also provide a valuable avenue through which individuals who desire to die and do not have a valid reason for the same can expose themselves, as they seek permission to take their lives thus getting help. The contrary opinion based on religion is valid but cannot be used to make laws that apply universally even to those who do not adhere to religious beliefs. It is from the totality of the above that right to die laws should be enacted.
References
CDC. (2018, June 11). Suicide rising across the US. Vital Signs. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/suicide/index.html
Katz, R. S., & Johnson, T. A. (Eds.). (2016). When professionals weep: Emotional and countertransference responses in palliative and end-of-life care . New York: Routledge
Qin, C. (2017). The New Pro-Choice: Legalizing Assisted Suicide. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt0tk787nh/qt0tk787nh.pdf
Schonthal, B., Moustafa, T., Nelson, M., & Shankar, S. (2016). Is the rule of law an Antidote for religious tension? The promise and peril of judicializing religious freedom. American Behavioral Scientist , 60 (8), 966-986
Tomlinson, E., & Stott, J. (2015). Assisted dying in dementia: a systematic review of the international literature on the attitudes of health professionals, patients, carers and the public, and the factors associated with these. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 30 (1), 10-20
World Health Organization. (2017). Preventing suicide: A resource for media professionals, update 2017. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/258814/WHO-MSD-MER-17.5-eng.pdf
