Just Take Another Advil

Would you rather have a painful suffering or an ease into death? Many terminally ill patients question that very predicament, but for some there’s only one option. The right to die, otherwise known as physician assisted suicide (PAS) has been a controversy for over a decade now. While both sides of the debate fight for pro-choice or anti-AS (assisted suicide), the terminally ill who have either a few years or a few weeks to live wish to have an easy transition to death and zero pain. So why not give it to them? It’s their life. In the constitution, the fourteenth amendment and other PAS cases such as Terry Shiavo and Gonzales vs. Oregon all contain logical reasons why PAS should be permitted in the US. Every terminally ill patient, in any state, should have the right to PAS.

The 14^th amendment states the rights of each individual person. Every person has the right to life and that no one will be deprived it. If one has the right to live, then why not have the right to die? It’s a patient’s own wish to die, and in most cases their quality of life has been diminished to nothing – depriving them of their happiness and liberty. The 14^th amendment also states that each individual has the right of liberty; and therefore happiness. When a terminally ill patient is on machines to extend their life more than naturally possible, their quality of life is no longer what it happily used to be. The option to have PAS should be a terminally ill patient’s rights to pursue if he/she wishes to do so.

Terry Shiavo, demonstrates that there is no positive outcome being on life support for an extended period of time and that terminally ill patients, like Terry, should have the right to PAS in such cases. After a terrible car crash sent Terry Shiavo to the hospital, they diagnosed her with incurable brain trauma and was pronounced mentally incompetent. For fifteen years she was connected to machines to keep her alive. This is simply irrational. If PAS was an option for Terry, it would save her the dignity and pride she deserved, not to be dependent on machines. Her family and friends went through excruciating pain seeing Terry in the state she was in for fifteen years. Though, because the law prohibited them from any other options, they didn’t have any other choice but to watch Terry drown herself. By allowing PAS, these situations don’t have to happen. And the pain for both the patient and the patient’s friends and family doesn’t have to be a long sorrowful journey; the more the reason why every person should have the right to die.       

Gonzales vs. Oregon, a Supreme Court case, reveals that there is no real reason why PAS should be prohibited and the optimistic values of allowing the practice. During the debate, the State of Oregon argued that physician assisted suicide violated the Substance Abuse Act. However, there was no evidence in the constitution to justify it and Oregon, with a majority vote, was permitted to practice PAS. After the death with dignity act was initiated, it produced new jobs, an alternative option, and a more controlled way to die peacefully for the terminally ill. All these benefits were created just because of PAS. There is no legitimate reason why terminally ill patients shouldn’t have the right to die and if all the states were to allow physician assisted suicide, a similar outcome would occur.

Every terminally ill patient should have the right to die. The 14^th amendment, Terry Shiavo, and the Supreme Court case of Gonzales vs. Oregon all share factual rationales why PAS should be practiced in every state. Though many states make the argument that assisted suicide is a form of homicide, it really it isn’t since it’s represented by the patient’s not the physicians. These laws prohibiting PAS for that specific reason should be ultimately changed. Ask yourself, wouldn’t you want the right for an alternative option if you were going to die or would you like to take pills and suffer before you do?