Argumentative Essay: Should We Have The Right To Die?

Why would you keep a murderer alive that expects society to save his own life, when he clearly did not value another human beings life? That question must be answered when deciding if convicted murderers should be given expensive health care when they have already been condemned to die for their crimes. Oregon taxpayers continue to disburse more than $120,000 per year to administer life saving dialysis for a condemned killer. Horacio Alberto Reyes-Camarena was sentenced to death row years ago for brutally stabbing to death an 18-year-old girl and disposing of her body near the Oregon coast. Reyes-Camarena is connected to a dialysis machine for four hours three times a week to expel toxins from his blood. Without dialysis, he would certainly die because his kidneys are undergoing renal failure. Each of his dialysis sessions cost $775.80 for treatment and medication; according to these rates his dialysis costs Oregon taxpayers $121,025 annually. While this
Society should definitely not be obligated to prolong the life of felons that have been convicted of heinous crimes. If they wish to have their medical expenses paid for while they are on death row, then the government should accept donations and have fundraisers to pay for their inmate’s medical bills. Budget cuts to hospitals in Oregon have forced some people to be removed off of the organ transplant list or kept them off the list completely because they are poorer, and uninsured. Patients are removed from the list because the government fears they will not be able to afford the costly drugs to keep their bodies from rejecting their new organs. It is unethical for the government to tax lawful citizens who cannot even afford their own critical health care, to die as a result, while thousands of their tax dollars are spent each year to pay for treatments of inmates already sentenced to death like