The debate about euthanasia and physician assisted suicide becomes real in the story about Davis when she decides the only way to exercise her right to die is through starvation. Jean starved herself a total of 5 weeks and quit drinking water 2 weeks before her actual death. Four weeks into her fast she told the Sunday Times about her experience. “It is hell. I can’t tell you how hard it is. You wouldn’t decide this unless you thought your life was going to be so bad. It is intolerable,” she said. In the concept of hurt and torture why would we choose to let someone destroy their life in an extremely painful way legally, instead of ending in comfort surrounded by loved ones? Reasonably, that should not be a question. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide should be legal. If we can find it acceptable to have the choice to put down our own pets when they are in pain then it seems only fitting we should be able to make that choice for ourselves. Each year 2.7 million animals are put down through euthanasia compared to the minute allowance of 1,400 cases of people choosing assisted suicide in the United States. As Milan Kundera stated, “Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death.” Why would humans not have the same …show more content…
As stated earlier, it is an American right for those people who are terminally ill to have the option to end their life peacefully instead of being forced to endure the horrible effects that their diseases put upon them. The American Civil Liberties Union, a group that has been protecting individual freedoms for almost 100 years, weighed in on this issue. As quoted by the ACLU, "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. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained." As shown by this quote, terminally ill people have the right to end their life before their illness does, and as Americans we should respect this right and at least give people in these unfortunate circumstances the option to