Golden claims that the company's are saying, 'We'll pay for you to die, but not for you to live' (Golden). I do not believe this to be true. I understand that insurance companies might want you to get the cheaper treatment because they wouldn't have to pay as much for you to receive it, but they wouldn't say "we will pay for you to die." I think that Golden is making a generalization by saying that companies will and have been telling patients this because it does not seem right in the first place and because this probably is not the case for all health insurance companies. Another fallacy that I found in this article was a hasty generalization when she said, "Available data suggests that pain is rarely the reason why people choose assisted suicide" (Golden). Golden does not show any evidence as to where she got this information from. How does she really know that every person that has committed physician assisted suicide is not in pain? There is no proof in her article about this data. Golden in generalizing that it is not pain and that there is no other reason as to why patients would pick to follow through with euthanasia. She believes that, "Instead, most people do so because they fear burdening their families or becoming disabled or dependent" (Golden). Well this may be true but it certainly is not the only reason why they choose euthanasia. It could be one or the other, or a combination of both. It all depends on who it is and the situation they are going through. This hasty generalization is another hole that is poked into her argument that does not help Golden make her point clear. To me, forcing a terminally ill patient to continue living is inhumane. They should have the right to their life and their decision on whether or not they want the aid to end their life due to the pain and suffering. Instead of getting to make their own decision these patients have to fight the government just to end their pain.
