Fortin 1

Article written by: Wayne Fortin

Do we have the right to die?

Euthanasia ranks among the highest of the bio medical ethics topics being debated in

today’s society making it a prime example of civic discourse. When it comes to such a disputed

ethical topic among our government and common citizens it is important that the facts are not

skewed. The type of euthanasia that is being supported by the pro activists is known as physician

assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide is a type of euthanasia where a patient requests pills

from a physician and after successful review the patient then takes the pills and dies a painless

death. It would seem legitimate that the patient would have to make a request that is first

reviewed by a physician, then the request is examined by a psychiatrist to make sure the

individual is making a fully aware decision, which would finally result in the death being handed

out. You may ask why people request to be killed. Well, the answer to the previous question lies

among a certain demographic of people. Among those who are asking are people who are in

hospitals suffering from a terminal illness or those that know that an illness such as cancer is

hereditary and may want the option of taking an alternate route to pain and suffering when it

becomes time. The usual age ranges of the pro euthanasia demographic are those 50 and above.

The question comes down to; Is euthanasia morally acceptable?

I believe that euthanasia is a topic of civic discourse because it is currently illegal in the

majority of the United States of America. The only place in America where physician assisted

suicide is legal is in Oregon. Many people that lie in their hospital beds due to a terminal illness

may want the option to have euthanasia performed onto them to achieve a good death rather than

a bad death.

People that do not support euthanasia say that the hospitals are used for prolonging life

by use of medicine and therefore forced death is non negotiable. Other issues involving
 Fortin 2

combating the issue of euthanasia include sanctity of life. Some people believe that it is against

our right to kill ourselves because our life was given to us by god. Others believe that the

legalization of physician assisted suicide where the patient is killing themselves will lead to a

slippery slope saying that soon it will be legal for the doctors to kill us with our permission,

which then leads to the assumption that if we are in a vegetative state doctors may soon then be

allowed to make the decision to decide if we live or die even if we are not able to make a full

coherent decision. If the slippery slope analogy is sound then a trust issue will arise between

patient and physician. Patients may soon state that medicine is used to kill.

Pro euthanasia rights activists have many reasons of their own why euthanasia should be

legalized. The people for the legalization of euthanasia may say that if a person is terminally ill,

it will be right for them to have a choice to die however they want since death will soon be

inevitable. Giving people a choice to die by means of physician assisted suicide may save them

from dying a painful death. Some people may say that keeping someone alive costs too much

money by means of life support and euthanizing would save the hospitals money.

The ones who are taking on civic discourse are the ones that want to legalize euthanasia

because they are opposing what the law is at the moment. Since the law states that it is illegal to

perform euthanasia in the majority of the nation, going against this law would be considered

civic discourse. The people that want to legalize the euthanasia law use the rhetoric tool of

appealing to emotion also known as pathos. To appeal to emotion I claim that autonomy is a

golden ticket and must be achieved, meaning it is the highest point of freedom and self worth to

be able to decide your own destiny. The main philosophy behind euthanasia is when it comes

time in we must get rid of the greater evil which is pain by accepting the greater good which is
 Fortin 3

death. It is stated that being terminally is very mentally depressing and elimination of depression

would be a great appeal to ones emotion as well.

Both parties in the euthanasia topic both seem to appeal to logic very well. The party that

opposes the euthanasia law appeal to logic when they claim the hospitals will save a lot of

money if the patient decides to euthanize themselves rather than to stay on life support. The

slippery slope example of one legalization will lead to another legalization of a different kind is

another form of applied logos.

Euthanasia is a topic that will be debated over for many more years to come such as the

abortion debate. The main argument in abortion is whether or not the fetus is a person with full

human rights or not. Euthanasia holds the same amount of debate as the abortion topic, except

we ask if an individual human as a right to terminate their own well being. There are pros in

legalizing euthanasia such as ending pain. Cons of the legalization of euthanasia are those of the

patient losing trust in physicians. Since this is a topic still in debate by our government and

lawmakers it is up to the individual to decide on what he or she wants to do if they ever find

themselves in a situation where they start to think about euthanasia. Applying euthanasia in their

situation would definitely be a prime example in civic discourse if he or she decides to go on

with it. As in the beginning we still find ourselves asking “what is moral?”