I can see both aspects of the argument and can find some right in both sides. I believe murder is wrong, even in times of war, I do understand that Physician-Assisted Suicide can be a humane option when someone has no other alternatives. I do not view Physician-Assisted Suicide as a form of murder. This type of request, when made by a mentally competent patient, takes the aspect of murder out of the equation and categorizes it as euthanasia. When I was 12, my grandmother passed away from Multiple Myeloma.
People who argue against physician suicide argue about the sanctity of life. There argument believes by legalizing physician assisted suicide there is likelihood for corruption, professional dishonesty, and efficient flaw. Those who oppose for holy reasons argue, our lives are given to us by a supreme being and others lives are not ours to take, but a donation from God and to destroy the gift God gave us is a sin and therefore immoral. However, a morally wrong act can be made morally right if the process used in deciding to perform it and the way it is performed are kindhearted and usefully
“Physician Assisted Suicide" SOC120 Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility Shannon Sellers October 21, 2013 Should a person be allowed to ask for physician assistance to terminate their own life? This question strikes a moral debate that does not have a clear answer. Autonomy gives individuals the right to make medical decisions relating to their course of care. If a person determines they do not want life sustaining measures taken physicians are required to respect this even knowing it may result in death. When it comes to the decision to end one’s life due to a terminal illness with unmanageable pain a physician is not allowed to assist one in dying.
The fact is that the government saying that people can choose to end their own lives actually does open up the door for other forms of euthanasia. The best way of preventing government from taking a stance on euthanasia is by making government the absolute defender of life. The government says that the premature taking of a life in any circumstances aside from rare exceptions like self-defense (where a life is being put against another life) is criminal. Whether it is the person ending their own life, getting a physician to do it for them, or ending someone else’s life, it is
So a physician’s decision to enter into this agreement with his patient is a difficult one at best. Therefore at this juncture the debate seems to indicate that physician-assisted suicide is driven by emotivism. This statement is made because although there is something to say about the position that it’s wrong, none of it is really based on concrete facts. Society surmises that there will be abuses of the practice. Because of the state of world today, one would say this is a given.
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.
31).Conversely, no-one can be appropriately assigned the right to say life-saving means should be abandoned because someone else determines that a patient is an excessive burden or that it costs too much to treat a condition. Humans deserve the right to life, even if that life is not what others may judge as a good one. The government and doctors’ cannot decide who lives and dies by passing a law that relieves patients of their rights. Mankind’s right to die has been extensively discussed; however, passing laws in support of physician-assisted suicide takes that option from the patient and puts into the hands of those who may not have the patient’s best interest in mind. This topic is bigger than allowing a loved one to go softly from life, it involves too much room for the abuse of the nation’s elderly, mentally ill, and poor, which should not, and cannot be allowed to
Kant also argued that society’s consequences for their actions do not make them right or wrong, but are determined by the motives that they have when they are carrying out their actions ( 2010, Hernandez). I agree with Kant’s theory and it coincides perfectly with the reason why patients seek physician-assisted suicide as an option. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines assisted suicide as the suicide of a patient, usually somebody
Family members can argue that the pleasure (relieving the pain of one family member) does not outweigh the cost of pain (a family losing a member). Pro: There are two main points that are associated with morality of pro assisted suicide. The first is the respect for death with dignity and the second is again using Bentham’s Utilitarian theory. After all, it is completely immoral to deny a persons last request: death. The main reason patients think about suicide is because of the endless pain they suffer.
Proponents view expediting death as an action of merciful compassion in that it may be the only way to relieve intolerable suffering and to allow individuals to have control of their own lives (Pretzer, 2000). Although some argue it is unethical for doctors to actively assist in ending someone’s life, some also argue that not doing so in certain situations would actually be more unethical. I feel that doctors have the obligation to do no harm to patients, but to the best of their ability at all times. The supporters of physician- assisted interpret this to mean that physicians should do anything they can to keep patients out of prolonged pain and suffering (Battin, 1998). It is the duties and responsibility of a doctor to assist a dying patient in having a comfortable, easy death, which in some cases may call for physician-assisted suicide, assuming it is the patient’s wish.