Perspectives on Physician-Assisted Suicides Brendolynn Champlaie PHI103 Informal Logic John Moore September 22, 2010 Thesis Assisted suicide should be legal it will allow terminally ill patients the freedom of choosing how they should end their life when they can no longer endure the pain and suffering. People have the freedom to do almost anything that they choose to do except for how they die. Some patients would like to die with dignity since is a personal choice and this is something their doctor should understand. The method that they might want to choose is euthanasia which is also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide (dying), doctor-assisted dying (suicide), and more loosely termed mercy (Christian Nordquist
Euthanasia Euthanasia or mercy killing both have the same meaning, which is: stop the patient who won’t recover from torment by using medical tools which are painless. Originally, it’s combining of two Greek words: “Eu” meaning “good”, and “ thanatos” meaning” death”. Simply, it means good death. Euthanasia has been known for a long time. In world war two the German soldiers who got very serious injuries and mostly would not recover, they let died.
Therefore, I agree with euthanasia protestors. Instead of ending someone’s life in order to prevent any more suffering, we should alleviate pain by improving our hospice care and making our healthcare system more affordable. Let us not lose our humanity by valuing life from the best ethical rules possible. In conclusion, the severity and the complexity of the euthanasia debate indicate why euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics. While some people strongly believe that euthanasia should be legalized, other people insist that euthanasia is literally a type of murder.
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.
Depriving a person of his will to live is the same, if not worse than killing that person. If murder is illegal under all circumstances, then torture should be illegal. Torture is unimaginable and permanent scaring of the body and soul (Dieringer). Torture is inhumane because it severely injures human bodies to a degree that can never be fixed. Torture has tremendous negative physical effects on the human body.
“Thou Shalt Not Kill” is one of the most well known commandments, and in some cases, most controversial. Assisted suicide is a prime example of one of these controversies. Physician assisted suicide, also referred to as Physician Aid in Dying (PAD), is a practice whereby a physician prescribes a lethal drug dose to a capable terminally-ill patient, upon the patient’s request, with the knowledge that the patient intends to use it to end his or her life. The dose must be self-administered. While generally seen as unbiblical, as well as immoral, this practice has recently become more condoned.
In the reading, “Brock grants that voluntary euthanasia, whether active or passive, is the deliberate killing of an innocent person” (164). In a sense, he states this may not always be wrong and also explains that when actively killing someone who wants to die really is not different from just allowing a patient to die, on a moral basis. He argues, on the premises of permitting euthanasia, that the potential good consequences outweigh the potential bad
First, and most important of these, the patient or persons requesting the physician assisted suicide must have a condition that is incurable and associated with severe, unrelenting suffering and understand the prognosis. Second, the physician must be sure the request is not made because of inadequate pain control. Third, the patient must clearly and repeatedly request to die. Fourth the physician must be sure the patient’s judgment is not distorted. Fifth, the physician assisted suicide should only be carried out in a meaningful doctor patient relationship.
Is Assisted Suicide Ethically Justified? Chriss N. Thomas Philosophy of Ethics Dr. John Schmitz February 8, 2012 The choice a terminally ill patient makes should be available to them in the event they no longer want to suffer. According to Dame Jill Macleod Clark, who sits on the Council of Deans of Health, states “those who have cared for terminally ill patients, friends or family know their greatest fears and anxieties are about intractable sufferings, and their desire for a dignified and peaceful death” (2011). When patients who are terminally ill want to hear options the argument has been made that all options are not available because assisted suicide comes with scrutiny and consequences. On the other hand opponents of assisted suicide do not believe this is the only way to secure a good health alternative.
Assisted Suicide Is Not Murder Assisted suicide is a very touchy issue but should be allowed for all terminally ill patients. Any person who has been diagnosed terminal should be allowed to end their pain and suffering. The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. The most widely used and accepted is the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person. Some people think that the definition should include the words, in order to relieve extreme pain and suffering Most people just want to live and die with dignity.