The Right-to-Die bill is a proposed law that is aimed at giving authority to terminally ill patients to end their lives through the assistance of a physician. Currently, six American states allow citizens to opt for physician-assisted suicide rather than continue suffering. In addition, to the six states, the District of Columbia allows physician –assisted death. The issue of physician-assisted death has become controversial and as a result, it has attracted the attention of experts from various fields including religion, medicine, politics, and the academe. The Right-to-Die bill should be passed because a right-to-die legislation would alleviate a patient’s suffering, allow them to die with dignity, reduce healthcare financial burden on the family, and give patients the opportunity to bid family members farewell and therefore, die peacefully.The Right-to-Die Bill Essay
End suffering and death with dignity
Many terminally ill patients undergo great suffering because of the excruciating physical and psychological pain that they experience due to their illnesses. In certain cases, there is little or no hope of recovery. Therefore, ending life would be the best solution to such suffering. It should be considered a criminal act for anyone to make a patient continue living who does not want to because of the suffering experienced. Death is the only way that pain and suffering can come to an end. In that regard, patients who wish to avoid suffering through death should not be prevented from ending their lives (Cholbi and Varelius 54).The Right-to-Die Bill Essay
The right-to-die legislation would also give individuals an opportunity to die with dignity. In many cases, some people die after losing their physical and mental capacities completely. In such cases, they die without dignity. Some illnesses lead to the disintegration of certain faculties that lower a human being to the level of an animal. The Supreme Court has made several key decisions regarding critical issues such as a patient’s right to refuse medication and the right to abortion (Hardes 66).
This implies that individuals have a protected liberty that allows them to choose whether to end their life in order to bring intolerable suffering to an end. Opponents of Right-to-Die legislation argue that assisted death is against the Hippocratic Oath that requires physicians to do no harm to patients. However, the admonition to do no harm can apply to assisting patients end their suffering through death. Prolonging the life of someone who considers it as a burden because the suffering is intolerable is harmful (Cholbi and Varelius 55).The Right-to-Die Bill Essay
Reduce financial burden on families
The financial cost of taking care of terminally ill patients is usually high and a burden to patients and their families. Many families struggle to pay healthcare bills in hopeless cases that could be handled by giving patients the freedom to choose death. A study conducted by Mount Sinai School of Medicine has shown that Medicare beneficiaries spend at least $39,000 during the last five years of their lives (Hardes 69).
People with terminal illnesses spend approximately $66,000 to cater for their healthcare needs. The costs of healthcare that people incur near the end of life are so high that many households struggle to get the money (Cholbi and Varelius 63). healthcare services near end of life are expensive because may families believe in paying for aggressive and advanced medical interventions that they think are the solutions to their loved ones’ pain and suffering. If a patient wants to die rather than continue living and suffering, there is no reason to deny them their wish.The Right-to-Die Bill Essay