Those with terminal diseases, sustaining permanent brain damage, in a coma and sick with various other incurable health problems believe that they should have the right to choose to continue living or to finish their life in a dignified, painless manner. They believe that decisions about life and death are personal. However, many others disagree and believe that there is sanctity of life that needs to be respected. They say that there is a difference between killing and passively letting die, when referring to those with terminal illnesses who refuse treatment. The question is whether or not it is constitutionally correct to restrict these personal rights. Should people be able to decide the path of their own lives, or is it not their decision or right to choose?
I believe that it is the right of the person to choose whether or not he/she continues a life of suffering, or decides to participate in an assisted death. People should be able to have the choice and can then, individually decide if it is moral or not. In the most states, it is currently illegal to aide in a death or to commit suicide. The two exceptions are Oregon, where both are legal, and Washington, where only suicide is legal. I plan to discuss the constitutional rights that all individuals have to life and death. I also want to explain the importance of allowing people to decide their own morals, and the fact that they differ from person to person. The law should acknowledge personal liberties. My paper will include examples of different cases of people who have been assisted in death and those that wish to, as well as responding to any counter arguments.
I want this paper to be read by my classmates and teacher and I anticipate that many will feel very strongly against my decision. This is a very controversial and possible sensitive topic and I hope to really appeal to the emotions of my readers and open them up to both sides of the case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Cassie, you are already ahead of the game with this topic proposal. You have skipped the exploratory paper and outlined a proposal/policy argument here. Now you need to step back and identify an issue here you want to explore in detail. For example, you use the term "constitutional" in your proposal. First of all, you have to decide whether you use this term to as following the existing law or as following the main principles of the constitution. You can explore what the constitution has to say about the right to die and how other related freedoms have been tackled. Or, you can move completely away from the terminological dispute and explore the potential risks/benefits that assisted suicide may entail.
Post a Comment