Your body, your choiceBrittany Maynard killed herself when she was 29. On November 1, 2014, she took lethal drugs, prescribed to her by her doctors, in Oregon, in her home surrounded by her family (Ertlet 1). “I want to live,” he said. But she had brain cancer, stage 4 glioblastoma, and had very little time left to live. “It's a terrible way to die. Being able to choose to leave with dignity is less terrifying,” he explained (If euthanasia...1). However, this right to die, the right to medically assisted suicide, is currently legal in only 4 states across America (State by State...1). Physician-assisted suicide, or PAS, is the “process in which the physician of a sick or disabled individual undertakes an activity that directly or indirectly leads to the individual's death” (Salubre 1). Contrary to popular belief, PAS and euthanasia are not the same thing. While both involve lethal drugs, the difference lies in who administers the drug. In PAS, patients administer the drug themselves, while euthanasia involves a third person administering the drugs (Braddock 1). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The fight against PAS in America began in the early 1900s, when the first euthanasia bill was drafted in Ohio and was unsuccessful (Timeline of ...1). A huge breakthrough was made years later when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act in the late 1990s, legalizing PAS under a set of safeguards and guidelines (1). Perhaps one of the most memorable events in the history of PAS is that of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who helped over 100 sick patients die. However, even though these patients made the decision voluntarily, Kevorkian was ultimately charged with murder (1). Why should a man who helped terminally ill patients who wished for death die, be sent to prison? Doctor-assisted suicide should be legal everywhere thanks to the concept of bodily autonomy, which includes the reasoning that the freedom to live according to one's personal beliefs should always be maintained and that terminally ill patients can choose how to die rather than let their lives can be taken involuntarily by an incurable disease and should not be forced to suffer. Bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental human rights. You cannot be forced to donate blood, donate a kidney, have sexual intercourse or carry on with a pregnancy (Personal autonomy 1). An individual should always have control over who or what they use and what happens to their body. This right to privacy and personal autonomy is protected in the 14th Amendment, which states that any state is denied the right to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment 1). Being able to commit suicide with the help of a doctor is a fundamental right like any other and falls within the range of freedoms under the concept of bodily autonomy; being able to kill yourself should be an individual choice to do what you want with your body and your life. By understanding this simple yet intricate notion of bodily autonomy, one can conclude that an individual's freedom and right to live according to one's personal beliefs, especially those that do not cause harm to other individuals, should never be violated. . This is stated in the first amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression (First Amendment 1). If aindividual with a terminal illness and who has been subjected to certain safeguards, wishes to end his life and put an end to his suffering, his doctor should be able to prescribe lethal drugs to do so. This action does not cause harm to the patient or others, it does the opposite by helping an individual end their suffering. And ending suffering is not an unfamiliar or immoral concept to Americans. When an animal is suffering, most people will consider, if not support, euthanasia to “put the animal out of its suffering”; the general American population generally considers it cruel to let a suffering animal live in pain. The same should be true for humans; a terminally ill individual should not be forced to suffer, but should instead be given the opportunity to choose how to die instead of waiting to be killed by an incurable disease. It is inhumane to force an individual to suffer, just as it is inhumane to let an animal suffer, and it is implausible to believe in the idea that "there is a duty to continue living". Believing in such a senseless concept, forcing an individual to live despite terminal illness and/or pain, could encourage suffering patients to take matters into their own hands and attempt suicide in other ways. This was the case of Danny Bond, who was born prematurely and developed an intestinal mucosal infection as a child; the health problems never stopped as he grew and could only spend a few months at a time out of the hospital. By the time he was 20, he had undergone over 300 surgeries and wanted nothing more than to die and end his suffering. But the only legal way to kill himself was to starve. He died at the age of 21 over the course of several days (Grimminck 1). However, there are common assumptions that patients asking to die make the decision irrationally, that legalizing PAS will increase suicide rates, and that it will put health at risk. pressure on the poor and disadvantaged. However, while these are legitimate concerns and questions, these conceptions can be disproved by looking at the state of Oregon, where PAS has been legal for nearly ten years (Ten Years...1). Since the Death with Dignity Act was passed in Oregon in 1997, over 1,100 people have received lethal drugs, fearing a loss of autonomy and dignity, and approximately 750 have actually used them to end their lives (Pope 1). Oregon has numerous safeguards in place to ensure that a patient makes an informed and voluntary decision when requesting a lethal drug, some of which include: patients must be at least 18 years old, mentally healthy, and two physicians have determined that they do not have more than six months old; the doctor is required to educate the patient about all options and the patient must make 3 separate requests, each separated by at least 15 days, and one request must be written and witnessed by two other people (1). The patient can cancel his request at any time and, if he chooses to die, he will have to administer the drug himself (1). And these preventative measures work, there is no evidence of disruptive impacts on vulnerable populations; more than 98% of patients who died from PAS had health insurance, and more than 72% had received partial or full college education (1). Of course, with the legalization of PAS, PAS rates in Oregon have increased, over 306% since the first year of legal PAS (Ten Years...1); however, it was in no way associated with an increase in unassisted suicides (Jones 1). Remember: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get an essay...1).