2008 Woodie Awards
To die or not to die, Assisted suicide: can it be justified?
PRO: Terminally ill have right to decide
Kyle Beall
Issue date: 10/24/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
It's OK to condemn people to death and execute them for crimes we consider atrocious, but when it comes to terminally ill patients who face imminent death, it is still a crime in every state but Oregon to assist them in a peaceful and painless end to their suffering.
What does this say about our morality as a nation?
"We will kill you for causing pain and suffering, but if you are suffering, we will keep you alive as long as possible regardless of what you want."
Somehow, as humanity has endeavored to prolong and protect life, we have overridden the right to relinquish it. I can understand and support those that wish to protect people who aren't able to voice their wishes, but what of those that do?
How can so many people argue for the right-to-life for unborn children and then not respect the wishes of those who have lived? What a selfish and closed-minded point of view.
Don't hide behind religion. Though you may choose to follow a faith blindly and let centuries-old translations guide your daily decisions, the Bible is not the law and neither is it even an issue in this country regarding the making of laws, which is why we have the separation of church and state.
There is only one thing in this world that is certain and that is death.
The only choice we may have regarding our demise is how we choose to go.
So what if someone who is terminally ill wishes to hasten his or her end?
It's no business of mine, nor is it the business of the public or the government to attempt to stop them.
According to an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics published in July of 2007, since the enactment of the Oregon Dying with Dignity Act of Oct. 27, 1997, only 292 people have died under the ODDA.
This number represents only 0.15 percent of all people who have died in Oregon since the law was enacted.
Of those 292 people, approximately 80 percent were diagnosed with cancer. And according to the article, the only group that faces a heightened risk of utilizing the ODDA is patients with HIV/AIDS.
What does this say about our morality as a nation?
"We will kill you for causing pain and suffering, but if you are suffering, we will keep you alive as long as possible regardless of what you want."
Somehow, as humanity has endeavored to prolong and protect life, we have overridden the right to relinquish it. I can understand and support those that wish to protect people who aren't able to voice their wishes, but what of those that do?
How can so many people argue for the right-to-life for unborn children and then not respect the wishes of those who have lived? What a selfish and closed-minded point of view.
Don't hide behind religion. Though you may choose to follow a faith blindly and let centuries-old translations guide your daily decisions, the Bible is not the law and neither is it even an issue in this country regarding the making of laws, which is why we have the separation of church and state.
There is only one thing in this world that is certain and that is death.
The only choice we may have regarding our demise is how we choose to go.
So what if someone who is terminally ill wishes to hasten his or her end?
It's no business of mine, nor is it the business of the public or the government to attempt to stop them.
According to an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics published in July of 2007, since the enactment of the Oregon Dying with Dignity Act of Oct. 27, 1997, only 292 people have died under the ODDA.
This number represents only 0.15 percent of all people who have died in Oregon since the law was enacted.
Of those 292 people, approximately 80 percent were diagnosed with cancer. And according to the article, the only group that faces a heightened risk of utilizing the ODDA is patients with HIV/AIDS.
Be the first to comment on this story