Oregon's Death By Dignity Law.

First off, I would like to start this debate by defining a few key terms. Oregon's Death by Dignity law gives a terminally ill oregonian the right to end their life through the voluntary self administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. Also, the inalienable rights outlined by the US Declaration of Independence as the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Argument 1: Oregon's death by Dignity Law re-inforces the inalienable rights of life and liberty granted to every human. The Declaration of Independence reports for us, our right to life and liberty. These rights allow us the liberty to determine for ourselves how our life should be lived, to what quality it will be lived, and how long it should be lived. If asked, I doubt that any of us would ever agree to forfeit these rights to the government, although by opposing this "death by dignity act" forfeiting it is exactly what you are agreeing to do. The death by dignity act applies to terminally ill patients who request this "assisted suicide" option as an alternative to either living a low-quality life, or simply committing suicide. The "death by dignity act" gives the patient access to an death with dignity. It is not forced of patients, and once the patient requests this option the choice of following that path is also left to the patient, allowing them to turn back at any time. So, taking away the right for the patient to die with dignity and on their own terms, is a clear violation of these invaluable rights to life and liberty. As said in [ ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),Dec. 10, 1996] "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Thereby, this law and the idea of Assisted Suicide, support these inalienable rights, and should be protected by the government as oregon is doing, for if we support the execution of these rights in every other situation, there is no reason why those rights should end at the right to die a peaceful death. Argument 2: Oregon's Death by Dignity Law gives patients a safer and more dignified option to ending their suffering. The right of terminally ill patients to refuse their life preserving treatments exists, knowing that the refusal of these medicines will lead to death. If this is legal, then there is no logical reason as to why assisted suicide shouldn't be allowed, and left as a right for those who aren't willing to go through the pain of months of suffering. A study, [Emanuel, E. J. , et al. "Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: Attitudes and expereiences of onocology patients, oncologists, and the public. " Lancet 347.9018 (2006), 1805-10. ] reported that 75% of the population they interviewed, including a large proportion of cancer patients reported that the severe and constant pain made the idea of suicide tolerable. By legalizing assisted suicide, and through this law, we are giving them a more dignified way to end their suffering, (a right that every person should have) without having to take extensive gruesome measures while being allowed a peaceful death. Argument 3: Oregon's Death by Dignity Law, and Assisted suicide promote the other inalienable right to pursue happiness. As John Mill said, "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. " This quote narrates the sentiment that the right course of happiness is one that causes the most happiness and prevents the most pain. We pride ourselves on the freedoms we as a people grant ourselves, such as the freedom of pursuit of happiness, but what is happiness for someone with a terminal condition who is being forced to live through the pain because the same government that allows other freedoms denies this one? Thereby, Assisted Suicide and Oregon's Death By Dignity Act, are doing justice, by promoting happiness and ending pain in the patients. Assisted Suicide, and the Oregon Law isn't offered/ doesn't apply to simply anyone. Only those who are severely sick with terminal illnesses and have no hope of recuperating are granted this option, and of them, only those in deep suffering choose this option (about 2.25% in oregon in 2011). Therefore, assisted suicide and the Oregon Act, aren't social hazards, but rather the opening of a dignified opportunity to those who really need it. As Faye Girsh, -- Faye Girsh, EdD [Senior Adviser, Final Exit Network,"How Shall We Die," Free Inquiry,Winter 2001] said ". .. people who are looking . .. to end their lives which have lost all quality should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. " We are granted protection from cruel and unusual punishments, from unwarranted search and seizures; it's unjustifiable why we shouldn't be granted the right to not be forced to suffer. Argument 4: Government shouldn't be granted the right to involve in end-of-life matters. "We'll all die. But in an age of increased longevity and medical advances, death can be suspended, sometimes indefinitely, and no longer slips in according to its own immutable timetable. So, for both patients and their loved ones, real decisions are demanded: When do we stop doing all that we can do? When do we withhold which therapies and allow nature to take its course? When are we, through our own indecision and fears of mortality, allowing wondrous medical methods to perversely prolong the dying rather than the living? These intensely personal and socially expensive decisions should not be left to governments, judges or legislators. .. " [Los Angeles Times, "Planning for Worse Than Taxes," Opinion, Mar. 22, 2005] This explains this argument perfectly. The government has no role in end-of-life matters such as these. As stated in my first argument, the government's duty is to uphold our rights, our right to choose our method and time of death (life and liberty), our right to pursuit of happiness, and has no place determining these things FOR us. Faye Girsh, Faye Girsh, EdD [Senior Adviser, Final Exit Network,"How Shall We Die," Free Inquiry, Winter 2001] said, "It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent. " Before one argues that killing people is not the duty of doctors, one should first question, is it their duty to prolong life to the point where life has no quality, or to the point where living is a burden to the patient in question? Is it moral to force a person to live who, with justification, doesn't wish to continue it? Allowing Assisted Suicide does not mean that every terminally ill person is forced to take this option, and it never will. It does not mean that a doctor "assists" them after a moments notice. There are precaustions taken, a fifteen day reconsideration period to prevent on the whim decisions. The patient in the end is allowed the right to turn back from the process at any time, and in the end it is the patient who voluntarily takes the pills. All assisted suicide means, is the right to end your own suffering, peacefully, and with dignity.