The Right to Express Personal Views

            United States citizens are accustomed to high levels of individual choice. In the past century, numerous behavioral choices that were once considered crimes are now left up to the individual. For instance, homosexual acts between two consenting adults were classified as crimes in many states. However, our laws have always recognized that individual freedoms may be curbed when their execution puts others in danger or otherwise interferes with the freedoms of others. A classic example of this conflict between individual choice and the larger good exists in the area of freedom of speech. Our right to express personal views, such as political opinions, is solidly protected by the United States Constitution. However, having "freedom of speech" does not mean we are free to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater when no fire exists, because shouting "FIRE!" in a crowd puts others in danger as people rush to get out of the theater. Our government has an obligation both to protect individual rights and to protect the general population. This means that our government will be interested in any actions that can influence the lives of others in significant ways. Many feel that the choice of doctor-assisted euthanasia when one is terminally ill represents such an action, because it includes involving others in the ultimate choice of life or death. The topic of euthanasia represents a social dilemma in today's society because the issue represents a clash between what an individual might choose for him or herself and the larger social implications of that person's choice. .

             The United States recently became involved with the issue of euthanasia when the Attorney General, backed by religious groups, challenged Oregon's law allowing euthanasia, called the "Death with Dignity" law. In the seven years since Oregon passed that law, 208 Oregon citizens chose euthanasia over a more natural death (Hoffman).

Related Essays: