Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course

By

Assisted Suicide Debate – Colin Evans

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6630220

In this article the doctors felt that Canadians finally being able to make the decision as to whether or not they want to fight the pain while in terminal condition was a good decision.

Premises

  1. Every human being has a right to life.   

    Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. – Derek Humphre

2.  Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them

  •  Like they said in the video, this ban infringed on the rights of Canadians to life, liberty, and security. Someone with little to no future ahead of them other than pain, should without a doubt have the option to die with dignity.

    At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity.  – Chris Docker

    In conclusion, people should have the right to assisted suicide.

  • In my opinion without a doubt this argument is valid. The points are simple, to the point, and factually correct. With that being said i believe this a sound argument.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php