We Do Not Allow Animals To Suffer, Why Do We Allow It With Humans? 3

Euthanasia
It consists of providing a person with sufficient means so that she, herself, can cause death
because it is a mandatory reform to decriminalize the behavior of the person who provide or those
who manifest the desire for assisted suicide-, with all the guarantees that the law give, in effect,
that it is a free act from the person, who decides to opt for that decent death , worthy, a good death
when he feels he has lost the autonomy of his life feels useless and suffers for it or has an incurable
disease that will anyway lead to death. That supposes, in my opinion, to recognize the right to
assisted suicide.
The Canadian philosopher Wayne Sumner argues that when the patient's circumstances are such
that suicide is ethically acceptable-as in the case of terminal illnesses-it is also ethically permissible
for the physician to provide the means for the patient to do so.
Canadian Judge Lynn Smith ruled in 2012 that "the provisions of the Criminal Code that prevent
medical care for death violate the right of disabled persons not only to equality, but also to life,
liberty and security."
Their goal was not to kill them but to help them end their suffering
1.Why must we force people to endure so much physical and emotional pain?
2- We do not allow animals to suffer, why do we allow it with humans?
3- How would you feel if your doctor suggested, as an alternative to chemotherapy, that you could
just kill yourself? The doctor would be affirming, with or without intention, that you would be better
dead because you would have avoided suffering, and in addition you would have achieved that the
health system saves a lot of money.
In 2013 the scientist Stephen Hawking manifested his defense of assisted suicide for the terminally
ill.
Stephen Hawking has recognized for the first time that he would consider "assisted suicide" if the
motor neuron disease he has suffered for five dequeids-amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-is aggravated
to the point of making his life unbearable or of doing it to those around him.
"Keeping someone alive against their will is the greatest indignity possible," said the 73-year-old
scientist, in an interview with Dara O'Briain for the BBC that will be broadcast on June 15.
Brittany Lauren Maynard was an American woman with terminal brain cancer who decided that she
would end her own life "when the time was right". She was an advocate for the legalization of aid to
die.
She moved from California to Oregon to benefit from the State's Death with Dignity Act, saying she
had decided that "death with dignity was the best option for me and my family." She partnered with
Compassion & Choices to create the Brittany Maynard Fund, which look for legalizing aid to die in
states where it is now illegal. She also wrote an article for CNN entitled "My Right to Death with
Dignity at 29
In 1997, the Law of Dignified Death was passed in the State of Oregon, which allowed terminally ill
patients to end their lives through the use of lethal drugs sold under prescription. Once received, the
individuals decide when to take them, if they wish.
Since then, 1,173 patients have chosen to participate in the program. Of them, 65% have opted to
die. Today, in four States of the United States and in three countries of the world - the Netherlands,
Belgium and Luxembourg - assisted suicide is legal. While it's a great start, it's not enough. Doctors
around the world should be able to offer assisted suicide with terminal illnesses.
This does not mean that assisted death should not be regulated. The laws must be well delimited
and specific. Regulatory systems must be in place to punish involuntary assisted suicide and to
assess psychiatric illness. Practices and medications must be updated routinely to reflect new
advances and knowledge.
Despite these efforts, we must remember that not every system is reliable and that there will always
be undesirable consequences. However, these risks alone do not guarantee inaction. If they did, we
would not have governments, legal systems and any type of health insurance. It is not the existence
of risk, but how we respond to it, which determines our results. By recognizing risk and letting it
guide the formulation of our policies, we can better protect patients, their families and doctors.
The judge of the Supreme Court of Justice of the United States William J. Brennan said: "A vile end
immersed in decadence is unwanted. Now, a quiet and proud death, with intact bodily integrity, is a
matter of extreme self-confidence. "
In a perfect world, medical care at the end of life would not involve suffering. Individuals would live
to the end of their happy and satisfied days. But that is not the world in which we live.

We Do Not Allow Animals To Suffer, Why Do We Allow It With Humans? 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

We Do Not Allow Animals To Suffer, Why Do We Allow It With Humans? 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

We Do Not Allow Animals To Suffer, Why Do We Allow It With Humans? 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Euthanasia

2- We do not allow animals to suffer, why do we allow it with humans?

You might also like