Theory Of Law

Civilizations and societies in order to function require a system of laws to protect their citizens and when the laws no longer served the interest of the people things changed or societies fell. In today's world the fear of precedent or lack thereof has created a void between some laws and particle application. What I hope to accomplish in this paper is to show that there is a void in regards of being held accountable for life threatening behavior versus risky behavior; and how this rationale applies to legality in American society in and out of the courts.

The legal system is a form of protection for those that live under it, it keeps the society functioning and moving forward. When a person becomes a detriment to society, whether in poverty or murder, the law is there to keep society functioning smoothly. The law should also protect those who want to remove themselves from society by death. Also if a person willingly wishes to be removed from their society by death, they have then lost their value in that society and should be killed at their request.

They have lost their place in society because they will no longer contribute to society and will be a drain on recourses. In the case of the terminally ill where there is no chance of recovery or cure, and the patient wishes to die sooner, the physician would be eliminating a drain on financial recourses. In addition, it would allow anyone emotionally suffering from that person's plight to move on and become productive members of society. In the case of a wife with her husband on his deathbed, she is not working; therefore she is not contributing to the betterment of her society.

One would qualify for PAS as long as they wished to die and were competent and informed of all facts surrounding their decision. If they do wish to die they will not contribute to society. Such as in the Oregon law, assessment of the patient's mental and physical state would be necessary to determine if they live or die, the decision will not be arbitrary. It will differ from the Oregon law, in that the scope will not be limited to terminally ill patients, but to any who wish to die.

This system will not only protect those who wish to die but, those who engage in risky or knowingly harmful behavior.

In the case of mountain climbing or playing an extreme sport there is a potential risk for harm but not a guarantee. Those who engage in these activities should be well informed of the risks beforehand; therefore these activities should not be banned. The participant would be held accountable for their decisions and actions. Drinking alcohol or eating fatty foods are risks that in excess can be detrimental to ones health, but in moderation the risk is negligible. This ties into the education and awareness of the individual and therefore should be legal.

In this system the citizen will be held accountable for being educated and well informed in their actions. In the case of cigarettes, every package has a label warning the user of the potential harmful effects it will have on their health. With that in mind marijuana and other "hard" drugs should be legal (it is Ironic that at one point or another today's illegal drugs were once legal), only if there is proper warning of the adverse effects of using the drug.

If one wanted to sell their organs at an auction, they would be entitled to