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
Physician Assisted Suicide Why is it only ethical to die “naturally”, after a long illness filled with highly “un-natural” life extending medical procedures? Over the last twenty years, physician assisted suicides have become a sensitive issue in governmental offices as whether to legalize such an option. Even though many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others, and some believe it violates a portion of a doctors’ Hippocratic Oath, Physician Assisted Suicide should be a legal option for those with terminal diseases or conditions because reasonable laws can be constructed which prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. Physician assisted suicide is the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration
Physician assisted suicide is something I disagree with because It would violate the trust between a patient and a doctor, It opens the floodgates for other such abuses and generally such requests are made out of fear for the dying process. Historically, the fundamental goal of the doctor-patient relationship has been to comfort and to
A difficult question facing society today is the legalization of euthanasia, another word for mercy killing. Euthanasia is a method of causing death painlessly to end suffering. People who are in a coma because of accidents and elderly people who are terminally because of incurable diseases are being kept alive by artificial means. They have no chance to recover, but American laws do not allow doctors to end their lives. Although many people feel that doctors must do everything possible to keep their patient alive.
Many disagree with it but I personally believe it should be up to the patient and his/her doctor to decide what is best for their life. I would say it would be considered as ethical egoism. I don’t agree with physician-assisted-suicide being illegal. I understand that someone’s death affects many people but I do believe that at the end it should be the patient’s choice. If I were terminally ill, I would not want to suffer just to suffer.
Life is intended to be lived fully and balanced, it is seen as irrational to end life due to illnesses. When a patient becomes terminally ill, incurable, and distressed, there is no value to linger on pain and suffering. The right to die movement does not promote assisted suicide and euthanasia to treatable matters. James H. Ondrey suggests the movements
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
They believe that people should die naturally and should not be assisted in their death by medical means. People believe that PAS is unethical and should not even be considered. “Many people fear that physician-assisted suicide will create a climate in which some people are pressured into committing suicide. The very old, the very poor, or minorities and other vulnerable populations might be encouraged to hasten death, rather than to "burden" their families or the health care system. Again, this is not a genuine choice, but a social issue, one that stems from how our society cares for its elders and for the poor, and whether minority groups can get good health care” (Lynn, 2006).
In Canada there are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive euthanasia is when life support devices of medicines are held back from the patient, because they are not improving a person’s life but only keeping them alive (people in comas on life support) and it is easier and less painful to die for the patient. That’s decision however is usually made by a relative or someone of kin because the patient isn’t in the right state of mind to make that decision. Active euthanasia is illegal in Canada, because it requires someone else to intentionally kill another human being. Although both involve the death of a person only one is considered to be illegal and considered murdered why is that?
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.