When you had a choice between a slow, prolonging and a quick, instantaneous death, which option would you choose? When only presented with these two options, one would probably pick the latter choice - after all humans are not biologically designed to withstand prolonged pain and suffering. Hence it is why assisted death has been one of the most important yet controversial topics hotly debated over the centuries. The term should not be confused with Euthanasia (also known as “mercy killing”), which is a practice of ending a life painlessly, assisted by a third party. For example, if a physician (a third person) assists the death of a patient by giving a fatal dose of medication or injection etc, then euthanasia has taken place.
The discussion if this topic is ethical or unethical is debated upon. Many philosophers talk about their views on euthanasia and what society view as the duty to die. John Rachels discusses the distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Bonnie Steinbock argues that in different cases there are
To further examine the data the utilitarian ethics approach will be used. It is important to remember that utilitarian ethics considers the consequences of actions. Indentify the Problem: Assisted suicide is it ethical or unethical? Is it right for a physician to assist a patient to kill themselves? This is the main focus of assisted suicide and the justification of the situation has been at debate for a long time.
By law manslaughter is a felony and should not be done. The physicians are at fault because they are giving the drug to the patient to drink. This is often confused with euthanasia, which the difference is the doctor administers the drug instead of the patient. From a biological standpoint a drug is administered to the patient to kill them. The drug given to them is known as a Barbiturate.
Killing is a form of active euthanasia whereby a person is deliberately causing death of a patient. As humans, all patients have the right to make moral decisions with regards to their own life. The argument for personal autonomy provides a stance suggesting that if a patient requests to end their life, within reason, they should be allowed to. However, it can be seen that this completely undermines the sanctity of life. Allowing a human life to intentionally be ended disregards the sacredness of human life and has no direct difference to murder despite the intentions to prevent pain.
Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized for the simple fact many would give up and take the easy way out. There is currently a pervasive assumption that if assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia (AS/VE) were to legalized, then doctors would take responsibility for making the decision that these interventions were indicated, for prescribing the medication, and (in euthanasia) for administering it .Richard Huxable remarks “that homicide law encompasses various crimes, so prosecutors can choose charges to suit the circumstances. Yet one thing is clear: mercy killing is still killing, equally, murder is murder” Physician assisted suicide is nothing more than cold blooded
Abortion: Summary Digest Some believe the sanctity of life is naturally determined by an inherent moral code, while others believe the value of life should be determined by personal choice. Despite the differences, there is no bigger quarrel amongst these views than the issue of abortion. The “pro-choice” perspective believes that any attempt at prohibiting abortion infringes on their natural rights. “Pro-life” advocates claim that there is not a fine line between the act of killing and abortion. In fact, they believe it is simply premeditated murder.
Some of the criticism is part of a larger body of criticism of pathways and guidelines in general. Some critics believe that pathways undermine individualised care and remove the ability of clinicians to make small changes in patient care (Palmer 2008, Rycroft-Malone et al 2008). For more information on this debate, refer to the discussion in Kennedy et al (2009). Some of the criticism of end of life care pathways relates to law and ethics. In particular, critics state that diagnosing death and putting people on end of life care pathways is a form of euthanasia – one newspaper story featured the headline ‘Sentenced to death on the NHS’ (Devlin 2009).
Although they believe that no one should end another person’s life by “giving deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest any such counsel,” (Hippocrates, Father of Mother Medicine) they also agree that exceptions will always exist. In such cases, they accept that passive euthanasia is sometimes right because it entails the withholding of a treatment that a patient needs in order to stay alive, surely with the consent of the patient. Thus, their focus on the issue is not to change the law, but rather improve standards of care. Doctors should give their best to prevent death, but they should not force treatment upon dying patients just for the sake of their Hippocratic
This chapter does not authorize euthanasia or any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying, including the withholding or withdrawing of life prolonging procedures under this chapter (FINDLAW.com). I do not agree with this law completely, hopelessly ill people who in the end will have to die in unbearable pain, wish to be freed from a life that has become a burden to them. They should not be compelled against their will to endure their meaningless suffering (Fenigsen, R. 2011). The government does not always think of how patients feel about the subject which is sad. Unfortunately the law that we follow is not made to think of how patients feel but how others will feel.