Clearly, assisted suicide and euthanasia are at the point of controversy, with good reason. Who is right: your overt and punishing “moral majority” or your under-spoken victim? First, let it be known that my viewpoint is centered upon a very liberal thought process where I believe that one has the sole and ultimate authority and say over one’s body. No one has the right to dictate the choices you make for yourself and the body you reside in. This parallels with abortion in that no man has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Therefore, no legislator, or legislation has rights to sovereignty in such matters. The only logic to be made for the creation of such laws is for a citizen’s best interest. However, once again, only the individual can determine best interest.

Now, with that understood, assisted suicide and euthanasia will be discussed separately. While they are essentially the same, legally, they hold different definitions. Assisted suicide is where our patient has reached the decision to take his/her life. He/she cannot do this alone; so they acquire help, but commit this fatal act alone. Already factored into this equation is the reason behind the suicide. And once the patient has recognized it, the reasoning no longer holds significance in the controversy. The motive need not be questioned. The fact remains that the patient is unhappy for whatever reason. Possible options are, but not limited to, that the patient is terminally ill and wishes to end suffering prematurely, or the patient is suffering pain that will never subside in a non-terminal situation. The reason no one else can decide this mortal decision is that the law interpreting body is not experiencing the sensations as the patient. They are trying to make decisions “out of body.” Given that one should not govern over the personal rights of another, the government should not interfere with their decision. However, if one needs assistance to complete their well thought out choice, by all means, help should be there. An assistant is merely that. Lawfully, the assistant is an accessory before the fact and can be charged with assisted murder. However, who can condemn someone for helping another fulfill his or her heavily contemplated design?

Similarly, but of even greater dispute is euthanasia. The same equation exists except the assistant takes a more active role. However, the same point remains in that if it is a person’s plan and desire, whose right is it to deny them this? As humans, this is one of the few, if only, things we can control. Though it is arguably inhumane, it is still a right. Legally, it is murder in the first degree. Following Lawrence Kohlberg’s theories of morality, one cannot escape this truth. Functioning at only the fourth stage (of six), as an individual, one’s moral judgement is dictated by the government and set laws. Well how about functioning, at least thinking, at stage six, where one’s moral judgement is motivated solely by one’s own conscience?

If someone wishes to die, so be it. Who are we to control them? What would be the purpose in that? To make ourselves feel better? To pat ourselves on the back, a job well done, that we saved a life. These are all selfish motives that perpetuate and prolong a victim’s suffering. There are no limitations or conditions on my view. I don’t care what precedent our judicial systems have set. Because I hope, that if I am ever in an unbearable situation, plagued by pain, a terminal disease, or near death, I will have the option to end my suffering. After all, the very foundation for assisted suicide and euthanasia, in a more simplified ideology, lies in the very legal living will. Will we sustain or discontinue life?

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1