It seems we agree that no one has a duty to die. But the problem is that as a civilized society, we have a duty to use scarce resources wisely. Their has to be a baisis for assigning resources like donated organs. Until now, the basis has been money; sufficient insurance to cover the procedure.
The parmaceutical industy seems to be less dedicated to research and development of life-saving drugs than "lifestyle" drugs like Viagra; meds for indigestion, meds for restless legs, etc. Their plea is that only by marketing these drugs can they afford to do research on real cures. But they don't seem to be coming up with much, do they? the profit lies in developing meds for "lifetime" illnesses that are never cured, just treated. My particular gripe is the space program. I cannot stand it that I had to lose my dearest friend to ALS and we are going to put a man on Mars. The war, too, is consuming so much in resources that are needed. Janet is right in saying that the answer lies in developing more and better health care for everyone. But we will always be faced with allocation decisions, it seems, and must work it out based on our best knowledge and ethical concerns.
I am terrible on noting citations of articles, but I do remember one about a 92 year old, terminally ill patient being subjected to an incredible number of "tests
and "procedures, including, so Help me, a Pap smear.
My nurse daughter calls this game, "Pass the patient, please"