Assisted suicide is an ethical topic that brings about much debate. Assisted suicide, or euthanasia, is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or an irreversible coma. Assisted suicide still is a controversial subject in today’s society. In Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez’s article, Assisted Suicide: A Right or A Wrong?, both authors give reasons for and against assisted suicide using deontology and utilitarianism. The two authors, Andre and Velasquez, explain the duties and obligations of assisting death, and preserving life. Through the analysis of Andre and Velasquez’s article, and the evaluation of assisted suicide in terms of deontology and utilitarianism, it will be argued that assisted suicide is justifiable and morally right.
In Andre and Velasquez’s article, they argue that assisted suicide is both right and wrong, which can be justified. Using deontology, they state that humans have the duty to eliminate the sufferings of fellow humans and to respect their dignity (Andre, and Velazquez). They explain that assisted suicide is a dignified way to die in order to preserve dignity and end suffering. The ones dying and are in need of assistance to die are “afflicted with excruciatingly painful and terminal conditions and diseases that have left them permanently incapable of functioning in any dignified human fashion. They can only look forward to lives filled with yet more suffering, degradation, and deterioration. When such people beg for a merciful end to their pain and indignity, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse their pleas” (Andre, and Velasquez). It is cruel and inhumane to ignore people who are suffering and need assistance to end that suffering. They do not want to continue living in ...
... middle of paper ...
... the patient’s suffering. They would have had anxious thoughts and frustration over their loved one’s incurable disease and the knowledge that they could not do more in order to ease the suffering. Assisted suicide is justified through Andre and Velasquez’s article and their use of deontology and utilitarianism. The analysis of Andre Velasquez’s argument and the evaluation of their uses of deontology and utilitarianism relating to assisted suicide clearly demonstrate the fact that assisted suicide is the morally right act to commit.
Bibliography
Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. "Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?" Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong? Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. "Deontological Ethics." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns on both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
A person that is suffering with the question to end his or her life, must have a deontological approach when making the final decision. A patient that is considering physician assisted suicide has considered the moral and obligational duties that come with the procedure. The person receiving care must think of his or her caretaker because ultimately they are the ones that endures the burden everyday of care. In the documentary, “The Suicide Tourist”, the husband spoke about the burden of feeling like he was punishing his wife for his disease. According to the deontological theory, the man felt as if it was morally wrong to continue living and feeling the way he did (Zaristky,
When patients suffering from serious health conditions are towards the end of their lives, they are given an option that can change their lives and the lives of those around them. This option is praised as an act of preserving dignity, but also condemned as an act of weakness. The terminally ill, as well as the disabled and the elderly, are given the choice to end their lives by the method of suicide involving the assistance of a physician. For several years, this method has been under debate on whether this option is ethical or unethical. Not only is this defective option unethical, but it puts ill and elderly patients under pressures that can lead to them choosing this alternative rather than the fighting for their lives.
distant cousin of euthanasia, in which a person wishes to commit suicide. feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for. the death, depending on local laws. There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This paper targets euthanasia; pros and cons. not to be assisted in suicide. & nbsp; Thesis Argument That Euthanasia Should Be Accepted & nbsp;
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
Physician-assisted suicide is the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. It is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life (“Physician-assisted Suicide”). Physician- assisted suicide is a dilemma that has been debated in the United States. While there are many reasons to consider it right, there are also many reasons to consider it wrong. Currently, states of Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have legalized assisted suicide through the legislature. While individuals have the right to choose whether he or she lives or dies, is physician- assisted suicide right or wrong? This paper supports that physician- assisted suicide is wrong. This paper will feature a case study on physician- assisted suicide. It will argue that physician- assisted suicide is unlawful, unethical, and is dishonoring.
Miriam-Webster's online dictionary defines euthanasia as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy". In contrast to euthanasia, the definition of assisted suicide is "suicide committed by someone with assistance from another person". Although the distinction between the two is subtle, the end result is the same- death. When discussing physician-assisted suicide (hereafter referred to as PAS), both terms are used interchangeably. The public and medical community remain deeply divided on this issue, citing moral, ethical, or legal issues. Advocates state that the terminally ill who are deemed medically competent have a basic right of autonomy; that is, they themselves decide when and how they will die. Opponents state that it is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to knowingly provide the terminally ill lethal doses of medications, or write prescriptions for medications that will certainly end their lives. These are questions that cannot easily be answered. This paper will discuss some of the ethical, moral and religious issues surrounding this subject, as well as some ways to resolve the controversy.
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
The authors of “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?" say that allowing people to assist in killing and destroying lives, along with devaluing human life, in a society that swears to protect and preserve all life, violates the fundamental moral society has to respect all human life. Once we devalue life, and say a certain quality of life isn’t worth living for a person, where will it stop? If assisted suicide is allowed for the terminally ill, society will start to accept and even presume that those with terminally ill conditions should end their life. The start of this divide assisted suicide can create is exemplified by Ben Mattlin. Mattlin has an incurable disease called spinal muscular atrophy. He was not expected to live into adulthood, yet has survived and now has two children of his own. “I could easily convince anyone that suicide is a rational option for me...and that scares me. Why shouldn’t I have the same barriers protecting me from moments of suicidal fantasies as everyone else has?” (Mattlin). This stresses the danger, as a society, that is posed to those with terminal conditions who want to live. Assisted suicide though seems to almost encourage ill people to end their lives. This is emphasized in the article “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?", explaining that if assisted suicide is legalized on the basis of compassion and mercy that society could start assisting “and
There are two methods of carrying out euthanasia, the first one is active and the second one is passive. Active euthanasia means the physicians deliberately take actions which cause the death of the patients, for example, the injection of sedatives in excess amount. Passive euthanasia is that the doctors do not take any further therapies to keep the ill patients alive such as switching off the life supporting machines [1]. This essay argues that the legalization of the euthanasia should not be proposed nowadays. It begins by analyzing the problem that may cause in relation to the following aspects: ‘slippery slope’ argument, religious view, vulnerable people and a rebuttal against the fair distribution of medical resources. This essay concludes that the legalization of the voluntary euthanasia brings more harm than good.
Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia is considered a mercy killing by many people and nothing else. It is described as a way of putting people out of their misery which is a difficult issue because it plays on our moral, ethical, or Biblical values we all hold. These methods can be considered an element of suicide because the patient is requesting this process to take place, or possibly considered as murder because it requires the assistance of a third party to complete the action. These practices have caused many controversies in today’s society because people argue the fact that this can be justifiable in some cases where many religions believe this is totally against God’s will.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
Throughout the course of history, death and suffering have been a prominent topic of discussion among people everywhere. Scientists are constantly looking for ways to alleviate and/or cure the pain that comes with the process of dying. Treatments typically focus on pain management and quality of life, and include medication and various types of therapy. When traditional treatments are not able to eliminate pain and suffering or the promise of healing, patients will often consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. Assisted suicide occurs when a person is terminally ill and believes that their life is not worth living anymore. As a result of these thoughts and feelings, a physician or other person is enlisted to “assist” the patient in committing suicide. Typically this is done by administering a lethal overdose of a narcotic, antidepressant or sedative, or by combining drugs to create an adverse reaction and hasten the death of the sick patient. Though many people believe that assisted suicide is a quick and honorable way to end the sufferings of a person with a severe illness, it is, in fact, morally wrong. Assisted suicide is unethical because it takes away the value of a human life, it is murder, and it opens the door for coercion of the elderly and terminally ill to seek an untimely and premature death. Despite the common people’s beliefs, assisted suicide is wrong and shouldn’t be legalized.