Last Name 1
ENC 1102
Project 2: The Right to Die
An individual’s right to die has been a persistent issue in the United States for many years
now. The argument is whether a person has the right to choose life support or whether the
family can choose for them if the patient is incompetent. Some stakeholders believe that you
should be able to choose, while others believe that you should not be able to be taken off life
support. This highly controversial issue has many people on their toes, and there should be some
sort of middle ground reached to resolve the matter. This issue should be addressed on a federal
level, and the compromise reached should affect every state nationwide. Only if a federal law is
enacted will these two groups of stakeholders be able to move forward together for the benefit of
everyone.
One group of stakeholders in this issue are people who believe that an individual should
not be able to deny life support for themselves or for their family members; they believe that life
is sacred and should be saved and cherished. Granting a person the right to die goes against many
of these people’s religions and morals, and they argue that they should not be forced to give up
their beliefs. The United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Cruzan v Director, Missouri
Department of Health that “absent clear and convincing evidence that Cruzan desired treatment
to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri’s actions designed to preserve human life
constitutional” (Cruzan). Nancy Cruzan’s family argued under the Due Process Clause that they
believed their daughter would not want to be on life support (Cruzan). This is where the issue
arises about whether a family can choose to take their loved one off life support.
On the other hand, another group of stakeholders in this issue are people who believe that
it should be a person’s choice if they want to be put onto life support or not. In extreme cases,
Last Name 2
these stakeholders believe in physician-assisted suicide. These individuals believe that if they
have expressed to a loved one, such as a spouse, sibling, or child, that they do not want to be put
onto life support, this expression should be recognized if the family and loved ones request to
carry out the individuals previous wishes. Choosing your right to die is like signing a “Do Not
Resuscitate” or “DNR” order. For example, if your heart stops and you do not want to be
revived, you are choosing your right to die. Likewise, if you get into a car accident and are
permanently brain dead and you chose previously that if ever in that state that you didn’t want to
be on life support you are choosing your right to die.
As mentioned previously, in extreme cases people who believe in the right to die believe
in what is called “physician-assisted suicide”. The article “The Right to Die”, from Public
Agenda for Citizens, defines “physician-assisted suicide” as when a doctor gives fatal injection
to a terminally ill person. In one of the more famous examples of this, Dr. Jack Kevorkian is
acknowledged for “helping 130 people commit suicide during the 1990s and served eight years
in a Michigan prison for administering a fatal injection to a terminally ill man” (The Right to
Die). According to a 2007 national poll, fifty-seven percent of people surveyed said that
physician-assisted suicide is ethical for an individual that “has made a rational choice to die due
to unbearable suffering” and thirty-nine percent said it is unethical (The Right to Die). Because
of these conflicts between people, the best solution for this problem would be a federal law that
every state needs to follow.
Finding common ground on an issue like this one is challenging, but it is clear that both
of these groups of stakeholders value life. Stakeholders who believe in the right to die value
quality of life, whereas stakeholders who believe that people should be put on life-support value
just being alive. But both groups do value life in some way, which is why this debate is such a
Last Name 3
heated one. They love their family members very much, and they want what is best for them.
Because both groups of stakeholders value life, even though it is in different ways, this is the
common ground between them. This is where we can hope to find a compromise. A federal law
should be proposed that says that every individual has the right to choose whether he or she goes
on life support or not. In the event that an individual cannot make that decision because, for
example, they are brain dead, the law should state that the individual’s family has the right to
choose whether the individual stays on life support or if they are allowed to pass away
peacefully.
One would hope that if a family member was permanently brain dead with no way of
connecting to the world and life around them that their family would be allowed to take them off
the life support that is solely keeping their body running when their mind and anything uniquely
human about them is not. This act could help the family get closure and properly mourn their
loved one. In a document released in NIH News from the US Department of Health and Human
Services, there was a study done on people who had loved ones in the ICU on life support. They
were going to remove their family members off the life support, and there were two different
ways they could do that. The first way was to remove the patient off all life support systems in
one day, and the other was to wean the patient off the systems one at a time over a period of
days. The study showed that people who chose the latter were less satisfied with the ICU care
(Bingham). This seems only reasonable because after making the decision to take a family
member off life support you most likely wouldn’t want to watch them suffer as you took them
off each machine day by day. A compromise to this ongoing debate is to have the federal
government pass a law that gives each person the decision if they would like to be put on life
support or not. Also, paralleling with the fact that a spouse or family can make medical
Last Name 4
decisions for their loved one if they are incompetent, that same family member should be able to
make decisions based on life support and what they believe their loved one wants. This way,
individual stakeholders can make the decision that is best for them, without forcing that decision
on other people who may have different perspectives on the issue.
By coming to a compromise and recognizing that both of these groups of stakeholders
value life in some way, one can come to the conclusion that one should have their own right to
choose whether or not they would like to be put on or taken off life support. This is a matter of
“quality of life” against simply being a live, which in this case could potentially mean just living
because your body is on life support. Choosing your “right to die” is an important piece of each
individual’s morals and views on what life really is. CBS News’ 60 Minutes stated in an article
that “Medicare paid 50 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of
patients’ lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenditures
have had no meaningful impact” (The Cost of Dying). That accounts for about fifteen billion
dollars a year in Medicare that could be put something else into the economy. Everyone can
benefit from having the right to die because it doesn’t interfere with that individual’s feelings
towards the subject and as long as each person keeps their views centered on themselves and
their families the conflict shouldn’t spread. This is an issue where people shouldn’t force their
views on someone else because it is so sensitive. If a federal law were made to protect
individuals’ right to choose to die, and their families’ right to make that decision if the individual
can’t, then everyone will be able to make their own choice. Those people who want to stay on
life support or keep their loved one on life support can do that, but they can’t tell someone else to
do that. This compromise will allow both groups of stakeholders to make the choices they think
are best for themselves and their loved ones.
Last Name 5
Works Cited
Bingham, Ray. United States. US Department of Health and Human Services. Prolonging the
Withdrawal of Life Support in the ICU Affects Family Satisfaction with Care . 2008.
Web. <http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2008/ninr-15.htm>.
CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent
College of Law. 21 October 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19801989/1989/1989_88_1503>.
"The Cost of Dying." 60 Minutes. CBS News: CBS, 03 2010. Television.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162
5711689.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody>.
"The Right to Die." Public Agenda for Citizens. n.d. n. page. Web. 22 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/right-to-die/overview>.