Governor Brown’s decision center on the idea is that the law should let the people control their own lives and their own decisions. No one has the right to make a decision for someone nor telling them what to do. Claim: Andrew Solomon first demonstrate how her mother was in agony from ovarian cancer for a very long time; this prolonged suffering, the only hope her mother will choose is assisted-suicide.
Solomon says, “To end her life after a long struggle with ovarian cancer. To allow her to die as she wished, we had to lie, and cheat, and break the law, and that behavior was antithetical to the way we had and have lived” (Solomon 1). Analysis: As the state of the text, “To end her life after a long struggle with ovarian cancer” and “To allow her to die as she wished,” exemplifies how her mother has finally made a final decision for herself and it is to end her life. She has been living with intolerable suffering from ovarian cancer, knowing that she cannot have a normal life and does not want to feel a burden to her loved ones. The phrase “we had to lie, and cheat, and break the law, and that behavior was antithetical to the way we had and have lived,” demonstrates that the law did not give the rights nor the choices to let terminally ill patients choose to end their lives. Solomon had to do it the hard way, lying and cheating to the law, as if she has committed a crime.
Terminally ill patients are allowed to have an assisted suicide with a physician. It is their choice and their control to how they live or die, it is their lives. Deborah Ziegler demonstrates how her daughter has terminal brain cancer and has been determined to have an assisted suicide. Context: Ziegler utters, “she chose to move from California to Oregon to take advantage of that state’s Death with Dignity Law[…] As passionate as Britt was about being in control of her own destiny as she progressed toward her goal of physician-assisted death, she was equally passionate about it is a choice everyone should have, all across the country” (Ziegler 1 & 5). Analysis: The state of this text, “being in control of her own destiny as she progressed toward her goal of physician-assisted death, she was equally passionate about it being a choice everyone should have, all across the country,” as this is being shown, everyone should have their own rights to choice and not being denied from the law.
Rephrase, “you determine how you’re going to die, you’re also determining how you’re going to live the rest of your life,” Ziegler’s daughter truly believes that terminally ill patients and mentally competent should not keep on suffering from the unbearable pain they’re experiencing and should be allowed to have assisted suicide to end their intolerable agony. The law nor anyone tells terminally ill patients and mentally competent of how their fate will end. The patients can continue with the chapters of their life or just end the story of their life because it is not anyone’s determination to tell other people of how they should live it or plan on how their death will end. Establish between two relationships of these articles(transition): Andrew Solomon’s article and Deborah Ziegler’s article exemplifies that terminally ill patients and mentally competent should have the right to die with nobility. It is their freedom and it would be violating their decision if anyone and the law taking away their control over their own lives.