by Josh Stringer

Created on: August 14, 2009   Last Updated: August 15, 2009

I have chosen to write for the "Yes" side, yet only because in most cases it is a right. Therefore, I will break down both sides of the argument and interpret the law, while using credible sources.

Anyone with a terminal illness has one important choice to make, "Do I want to live with this illness/pain for as long as I can fight it out?" or "Do I accept the inevitable and go peacefully?". When someone makes the choice with suicide, or refusing lifesaving treatment, is not absolute, therefore many factors come into play.

The first and foremost factor is, is the person competent enough and mentally healthy in order to make this choice? If he/she is then the next factor comes into play. State interests are as follows.

1: The preservation of human life is a paramount state interest. (Stating that human life is first and of foremost importance.)

2. The state has a compelling interest to override a person's right to refuse lifesaving treatment if in that persons death negatively effects innocent third parties. (A single mother would not be allowed to refuse lifesaving treatment or ask for euthanasia if her children are under 18. Spouses, incompetent adults, or anyone who relies on the person considering euthanasia will cause the state to override the patient's choice.)

3: The state has a duty to prevent suicide. (Suicide by definition is a direct act or violent measure against oneself, which is specifically designed to end life.)

4: The state has an interest in maintaining the ethical integrity of the medical profession. The courts will protect any physicians from being forced to treat or not treat without a hearing or the opportunity to withdraw from the case. (They recently past a law stating that if the treatment, euthanasia, abortion, or anything related goes against the physician's personal beliefs, they are not required to treat or preform the treatment.)

Here are some cases for you to read from to see this law in action.

Abe Permutter, was a 73 year old man with quadriplegia from a progressive amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who was unable to breathe without a medical respirator. Mr. Perlmutter requested withdrawal of the respirator. His physicians refused to do so because of the potential liability for homicide, (Unlawful killing of another human being.) The court stated that a mentally and legally combatant patient, having full knowledge of the consequences, may request removal of artificial life support where there is no compelling state interest.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>