It is easy to see why this is a hotly debated subject because death is not to be taken lightly. Opponents worry about the ethical and moral implications. They consider P.A.S. to be immoral and violating God’s will. Catholics believe that life is the most basic gift God has given to us and in return we are to take care of our own health; but in our lives, “we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances.” (ProCon.org).
The role of our conscience is also a reason a follower of a religious ethic would use to support their objection. Firstly, Natural Law is a deontological theory and does not look at the individual needs or situation; it considers the act of euthanasia or ‘the act of killing’ itself. The preservation and protection of life is a primary precept and should absolutely be followed. Euthanasia goes against this. A follower of Natural Law would object to euthanasia, chiefly for this reason.
The way of looking at this is giving medical care and love and compassion to these people. Talking to them out of suicide as stated in an article. Also most patients who choose to go with assisted suicide are in dread that they are disturbances and can no longer enjoy the little things in life because of there physical state. Perhaps medical care is what they need, except in cases where the illness is physically unbearable then assisted suicide could become in use. This case is still raising questions for
On the other hand opponents of assisted suicide do not believe this is the only way to secure a good health alternative. Opponents believe that it is important to make a patient feel comfortable and help them improve their quality of life not end life just because it is an option or that they may feel they are a burden to loved ones. Assisted suicide can be performed by a physician or a person who is willing to help a patient end their life. This paper will focus on physician assisted suicide (PAS), this has been a controversial issue in many countries and have many different opinions on the ethics behind assisted suicide. To further examine the data the utilitarian ethics approach will be used.
My second solution may well eliminate more and more cases of TBI if number of soldiers decrease. Third solution will be a lifesaver. It is known that TBI patients, if not treated, may commit suicide in some cases. So if patients are diagnosed earlier, some lives might be saves and also tension and anxiety will be reduced on families of those who suffer TBI. A counterargument in regards to TBI would be the long-run treatment.
We are going to begin this paper by looking at the opposing side of this topic. Many people on the side against assisted suicides believe that we as a society have a moral duty to protect those that are innocent. Others believe that any laws that sanction assisted suicides on the basis of mercy and compassion would eventually lead to someone making the decision of who lives or who dies, based on how they feel about the worth of another’s life. The biggest argument against the legalizing of assisted suicides in this country is the fact that it is simply against the law. The Supreme Court has not ruled that a person has a fundamental right to die, there for taking of someone’s life is plain and simply
A physician job description is to aim at the provision of treatments with health benefits in the patient’s best interest, and to avoid adverse outcomes (Fiona Randall & Robin Downie 2010). Once a patient has died it is no coming back and the physician does not want this one their conscience when one day a cure could come along for terminally ill patients. Physicians are to heal and prolong life not take a life. Granted, physician assisted suicide if it does become legal it is still a decision left
Consider the political and cultural difficulties that are in the way of making dying more humane, cost-worthy, and dignified. Now picture a new reality: widely available and socially acceptable killing of patients who are terminally ill. Why even mess with raising the taxes for insuring good hospice care for everyone? Why increase research dollars to find and develop more effective pain management? Why take the more difficult road to make the process of dying more humane when there is a shortcut that terminates the dying process itself? Financial pressures also may lead to incentives for active killing by putting a limit on funding for terminal care.
Do you believe that some people may have a problem with temptation and the enjoyment in exercising power over others? I would agree with this statement because many people who care for those with some sort of illness may try to control them when it comes to another part of their life; so I am sure that they will use the power to choice between assisted suicide or not. Allowing assisted suicide could put a patient that knows the end is near and wants to leave this world in a peaceful manner. I know that I am for assisted suicide but I do not think that assisted suicide should be given to an elderly person or anyone who feels like they are a burden on someone. We have society to blame for that, because that is all the world portrays.
To allow people to assist others in destroying their lives violates a duty we have to respect human life”. A society committed to preserving and protecting life should not allow people to destroy it (Andre, Claire & Velasquez, M ) Though it’s nobody’s fault when someone gets sick with a terminal illness, should we allow people to be put to death out of compassion or mercy? Many people feel that life and death are in the hands of God. That God should be the ultimate judge in who dies and when. What about people with disabilities?