Often labeled compassionate, according to the columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Joni Eareckson Tada, legalized assisted suicide or euthanasia is really a deadly double standard for those with severe disabilities, both conditions that are labeled terminal and those that are not. She seems to be of the opinion that euthanasia should never be considered an option no matter how severe or subjective suffering the person is facing. In the article, Tada claims that legalization of euthanasia, “sends a clear message that a person with a disability may not have a life worth living” (1). She touches on euthanasia in The Nethlands and Belguium . She stands for a powerful example of a person with this depilating condition, in this case quadriplegia, can accomplish in spite of her condition.
However this is somewhat of a bias perspective because it implies that she has put a measure on the subjective pain this condition and similar to it entails. There should be certain conditions set in order to qualify for euthanasia so that it is an option for people who want it but we can also make a system to prevent people from misusing it. We were granted free will which includes the right to end our life when we chose. There does not need to be this all or nothing attitude towards assisted suicide and the disabled. Tada argues, “this ruling sends a clear message that a person with disability may not have a life worth living”(1). This law would bring nothing but a choice for the terminally ill. There are some disabilities that are incurable and cause tremendous suffering. They should not all fall under one umbrella.
Andrew Btiva wrote in his article, Disability and physician-assisted suicide, “We do not believe that the right to assisted suicide is premised on a diminished quality of life for people with disabilities. It is based on respect for the autonomy of terminally ill individuals during their final days. It does not deny people with disabilities suicide prevention services, protection against murder, or protection from other abuses”(1). Tada is very bias in this article claiming that it would take away the disability will to live and go against their advocacy to have hope and live. When a person comes disabled and loses control in many ways, this in fact just gives them something that they can control.
There are defiantly some factors that should qualify for a person requesting assisted suicide. They should be terminally ill with no hope of recovery and in great physical pain. If it were legalized the disabled population would be majority of the prospect’s. I don’t believe that all disabled should qualify automatically as Tada argues in her article claiming that if legalized all disabled including children and obese would qualify for assisted suicide as an option. Tada states, “Society’s moral and unwritten law has always led us to save our children-and certainly not allow them to destroy themselves”(2).
I do agree that children should ever be considered for assisted suicide unless they are in dire suffering with no hope of recovery. Tada argues, “ a child lacks the mental, emotional and psychological maturity to make such a decision about death”(2). I completely agree with this but if you had your child suffering and in a vegetative state with no chance of recovery wouldn’t you want to put them out of their misery? We don’t let animals suffer so why let humans?
My aunt had a very full life at 52 she found out that she had pancriaic cancer and after she went to the doctor twice she was informed that she had nothing more than IBS. I had advised her that she should get further checked out. And in June of 2010 she went to the doctor with horrible pain in her stomach and after many tests she was informed that she was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. At that point she was also told that she would not be able to get the surgery to remove it because it was at the lower end of the pancreas where it would be more difficult and could pass from the operation. She was told she could do Chemotherapy. After doing 6 month of intensive pain ridden sessions she realized that she didn’t want to do that any more.
Even tho she did not want to end her life she did request that when she was no longer responsive in the hospital that she have the ability to be taken home for the rest of her time. It was only then that the doctors were very opposed to us taking her from the hospital. Not caring that it was her request that she not suffer the were not willing to let us take her home. Before her death she wanted to die at home with dignity. She didn’t want to be in the hospital. She truly believed that it would have been harder on the family to take care of her and she her like that she wanted to stay beautiful and not have her loved ones remember her as a “vegitable” laying in a hospital bed.
This can be a really slippery slope. Who decides for the children or senile women? I truly The person requesting needs to mentally stable and there needs to be safeguards against any family or doctors so as not to persuade the person in to euthanasia projects in her article Let’s make a distinchin are qualifier. Terminal and suffering ,incurable, if theres a huge financial burden. Depression and mental