Euthanasia – Do People Have the Right to Make the Choice of Dying?There is a big controversy on whether people should have the right to die if they are in unbearable pain or should they be forced to exist in that state. According to the New Standard Encyclopedia, (“Euthanasia”E-253-254). Euthanasia is ending the life or permitting the painless death of an individual who is suffering from incurable illness and hopeless injury. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek and means “easy death” or commonly referred to as “mercy killing.” Euthanasia has two different kinds passive and active. Passive euthanasia is the withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging treatment for the terminally ill, allowing them to die naturally. Active euthanasia is the assisting of terminally ill individuals to end their lives and is sometimes called “assisted suicide.” Passive euthanasia is legal in most places and active euthanasia is against the law in most countries and most all religions are opposed against it. In my opinion, people should have the right to end their life if they are in unbearable pain and they should not be forced to exist in that state. Im for euthanasia and here is how I support my decision.
Do people have the right to make the choice of dying?Of course people have the right to choose if they live or die when they are in unbearable pain and if they have a living will in place. A person that has cancer and that has hospice care and is getting morphine and other medication for pain if they choose to die, let them die so they do not have to suffer anymore. People in this condition will die eventually and often pray for death. I had seen my brother-in-law and my uncle die from cancer and all pain they had to suffer. It seemed all they wanted was for the pain to go away. If a person is in such a dramatically emotional state, and they choose to end their life by euthanasia or committing suicide, that is their right and no one has the right to tell them differently.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was followed by other states, as did the American Medical Association’s (AMA) support for people like Dignity. And there was debate in Colorado, a state that has the dubious distinction of having the No. 7 death penalty in the United States, after a federal court struck down its “cruel and unusual punishment” for medical marijuana use.
After the ACLU and other plaintiffs in Denver sued, a lower court threw out a similar suit as “incoherent, unreasonable and unfair” and threw out a separate law that was designed to prevent death penalty appeals and to keep states away from the death penalty, while providing a path to a state-by-state model for state-by-state, legal and moral decisions. (They did not argue that “the state government’s right to choose” was constitutional or that those decisions have any bearing on what people can do to be subject to the death penalty.)
In some other states, those who took up the death penalty also took up the opportunity to choose to be executed in a different way. And the ACLU pointed an finger at Arizona’s death penalty law that gives life to a single person for minor infractions.
The plaintiffs in Colorado argue that a state’s death penalty statutes, and the federal courts which upheld them, violate the Second Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment under the 14th Amendment (so called in those states where the death penalty hasn’t been administered). Here’s what they tell the ACLU:
“In Colorado, as we argue in our class action lawsuit, this Court cannot rely strictly on the Supreme Court’s ruling, and cannot avoid the burden of establishing the federal government’s right to choose or to force a state to choose its version of life in death. Instead, we need to find the State Legislature’s authority to direct and regulate death row execution, and for the Court’s holding that a state’s death statute may authorize a state to make this decision, for the reasons outlined in these separate class actions, it appears that the District of Columbia is clearly violating the 14th Amendment under the Colorado statute and that this must be resolved by a Supreme Court decision, for which all the states have equal voting power.
“If Arizona’s law is upheld, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider Colorado’s death penalty law prior to final decision on this case. We urge the State of Arizona to clarify its authority to choose its version of life in death and to take up this opportunity before the Supreme Court as the cause of this litigation.”.
In Colorado, Colorado’s law requires the state to give 20 days’ notice to any person convicted of a criminal offense, or for felony charges for a violation, to submit a completed application, a complete list of the charges charged, which includes a list of their personal history, and information about the defendant or person that can show that the defendant is not a violent threat or that the defendant knows the person is dangerous or is a danger to the public. (There are two legal interpretations
On the other hand, Should be people be forced to continue to live? I feel that a person that wants to die and has a living will should not be revived due to their wishes on dying incase of a terrible accident or terminal illness. As an American citizen you have violated their rights