Essay by oleg12384University, Bachelor'sB+, February 2004

download word file, 5 pages 3.7 3 reviews

No matter how you drink your orange juice, eat your fruit and vegetables, and do your exercises, the fact remains that one-day, you will be dead. The only question, given current medical technologies -is when. A person should have the right to decide when to die, especially if he/she is in the advanced suffering stages of a critical disease that has no cure. But what role should doctors play in assisting a patient's death? The idea as endorsed by The House of Delegates of the American Medical Association on December 4, 1973, is that it's permissible to withhold treatment in some cases and allow the patient to die but it's morally wrong to take "direct action" in killing a person (Ubell 25). But with humanitarian interests at stake, isn't it more humane to end suffering as soon as possible? Active euthanasia should be a freedom embodied in our Constitutional Amendments for its role in ending prolong suffering in cases where death is a certainty.

Today, many people who are terminally ill continue living with the help of new medical technologies. They suffer from intense pain, and slowly, their bodies begin to decay. They lose the ability to move, speak, eat and most important - the ability to enjoy life. In Maclean's Magazine, Daniel, who is in the advanced stage of AIDS says, " I feel that the quality of life is more important than the quantity." He is asking for doctors to help him die since he cannot do it himself (Driedger 51). Is it not how we live our lives that bring meaning? It is the precious memories that bring us smiles, not the pain and agony.

In "A crime of Compassion," Barbara Huttmann describes Mac who is suffering from lung cancer:

Six months isn't such a long time...