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.
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.
The American Medical Association has generally argued against physician assisted suicide on the grounds that it undermines the integrity of the profession (Braddock & Tonelli 1998). Although patients can commit suicide without the aid of their physician it is still against the law and it can affect family members after they are gone. Opinions differ on the ethical consequences of trying to make physician assisted suicide the responsibility of doctors, but prior consideration of such ethically relevant consequences the question arises of whether the provision assisted suicide can logically be part of the doctor’s role (Fiona Randall & Robin Downie 2010). At the same time the state needs to monitor physician to see that they do not break the law and take it into their hands to participate in physician assisted suicide. 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).
48% over whether it is morally acceptable or morally wrong”(Saad), more divided than even abortion and gay relations. But why is this? PAD is a personal choice of an ill individual, which affects no one’s life except their own. While the bible, and general morality come into play, what about dignity? The later stages of terminal illnesses can make a person almost completely unrecognizable, physically as well as mentally.
From the con side of the topic Physicians legally and morally should not assist in suicide of terminally ill patients. This simple fact could boil down to the simple fact that suicide is suicide and it is morally wrong. A lot of countries around the world feel as though this is not moral and this why it is illegal in a vast majority of countries around the world. You could argue that this goes against a doctor’s job. The medical person who is administering the drug is not doing their job as a doctor, which is to help people not kill
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.
| Assisted Suicide | [Type the document subtitle] | | This paper will discuss my article findings dealing with assisted suicide | | Jessica Hairston | 11/10/2011 | | Assisted suicide has always been a highly debated ethical issue that many are confused about and don’t know what it is really about. Assisted suicide is stated to be “physician-assisted suicide (dying) , doctor-assisted dying (suicide), and more loosely termed mercy killing, basically means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering. Some interpret euthanasia as the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Many disagree with this interpretation, because it needs
It is not enough to simply keep the body alive, the spirit that is within it must be tended to as well. Is it mere convenience to assist a person that is terminally ill, with their suicide? Is it moral, to end the suffering of one at the expense of their family’s emotional pain? My argument against euthanasia would be to better improve the quality of life for an ailing individual, rather than terminate their life. It may not be cost effective, or the most convenient for friends and family and hospital staff, but it provides the satisfaction that everything that could have been done, was done.
The most common argument raised by proponents of physician-Assisted suicide, is that people should not endure suffering; they have the right to die with dignity, and their autonomy should be respected by law. However, this composition will debate three unethical standpoint of legalizing Physician-Assisted suicide. First I will argue that it is unethical, that it is a slippery slope to voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary euthanasia, and it is a gateway for unscrupulous
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).