In my opinion I do not agree with the statement that it is morally justifiable to deny her assisted death and force Debbie Purdy to starve to death because some believe each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to decide at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die.
In the case of Debbie Purdy she had suffered from multiple sclerosis and during the latter stages of her life she had lost the ability of all parts of her body however, her speech remained. She stated she did not want to die but it can come to a point where the positives of life dint outweigh the negatives so she felt other options should be made aware to others in her situation. Behind this is the idea human beings are free natural bodies, with the right to take and bring out choices about themselves, which ultimately are for the greater good of society and needless limitations on human rights are a not good. As Purdy’s illness was terminal health resources were being wasted on her and it could be argued permitting such people to obligate euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free up cherished resources to treat people who want to live. From a utilitarian perspective, allowing euthanasia is a question of displaying that permitting people to have a fulfilled death at the time of their picking will make them more content than the pain of the illness, the loss of self-worth and the anguish of expecting a sluggish, excruciating death. This would have already been discussed amongst those who want euthanasia.
Even some aspects of Christianity propose that there are some obligations are in contradiction of the overall view that euthanasia is a bad thing. If Christianity wants us to respect every human being we should respect their decisions