Should euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, be legal? The End of Life Options Act in Utah argues for the conditions under which patients should be able to legally request and be given a life-ending prescription. On one hand, it seems right for physicians to deny their patients euthanasia because all lives have value, but on the other hand it also seems right for patients to have the choice of requesting euthanasia if they are capable of making a fully informed decision. Immanuel Kant, a liberal philosopher, asserts that human life has absolute value and thus it should never be ended under any circumstance. However, John Locke, a liberal and empirical philosopher, claims that people can use their reason to make decisions, and these decisions
As Michael Sandel points out in his book, Justice, Kant believes that “if a person summons the will to preserve his life, not from inclination but from duty, then his action has moral worth” (114). Kant believes that anything that preserves human life is moral, and thus, anything that takes away human life is immoral. Through this framework, the End of Life Options Act should not go through the Utah legislature on the basis that it would disrespect the value of human life. In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states, “Man is not a thing—not something to be used merely as a means: he must always in all his actions be regarded as an end in himself. Hence I cannot dispose of man in my person by maiming, spoiling, or killing” (97). Kant argues that using a person as a means to an end is unjustified because humans are not commodities and all human life has moral dignity; even if someone is suffering, he/she should not commit or be assisted in committing suicide because he/she would be using his/her body as a means to fulfill a desire. Kant opposes all types of suicide, so a Kantian framework would not permit euthanasia because all lives have value and thus destroying a life, under any circumstance, is always
The act describes the specific conditions under which a person must file their request for euthanasia, and one main clause is that the patient must be capable of making a fully informed decision (State of Utah 70-74, 83-91). These specific conditions help to ensure that patients make rational decisions when contemplating euthanasia. This emphasis on reason helps to guarantee that patients will never doubt their decision. Locke believes that humans are reasonable creatures who are capable of making rational decisions (Uzgalis). This belief in rationality suggests that all decisions humans make are reasonable and thus infallible. A Lockean framework would support the End of Life Options Act because it encourages rational decision making that could end unnecessary suffering. Through rationality and comprehension of their situations, patients could choose to end all of their pain and agony if this bill were passed. Under a Lockean framework, the moral importance of respecting informed decisions would lend support to the passing of the End of Life Options Act because it allows people to use reason in order to determine their
The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it struggles with the issue of life and death. If you take a moment and imagine how you would choose to live your last day, it is almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a day spent lying in a hospital bed, suffering in pain, continuously being pumped with medicine, and living in a strangers’ body. Today we live in a culture that denies the terminally ill the right to maintain control over when and how to end their lives. Physicians-assisted suicide “is the voluntary termination of one's own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide, 2017). Physician-assisted
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
Jack Kevorkian, a former pathologist said, “ Everyone has a right for suicide, because a person has a right to determine what will or will not be done to his body” (“Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?”). That's true, everybody should be able to determine what happens to their body. Geoffrey N. Fieger, a attorney for Dr. Kevorkian, said, “a law which does not make anybody do anything, that gives people the right to decide, and prevents the state from prosecuting you for exercising your freedom not to suffer, violates somebody else’s constitutional rights is insane” (“The Right to Assisted Suicide). Then Ronald Dworkin, a person that witnessed a woman in pain, ask for assisted suicide, said “whatever view we take about, we want the right to decide for ourselves” (“The Right to Assisted Suicide”). This is showing that people want to be able to make their own decisions with their body. If they or somebody they know wants to make the decision to go with assisted suicide, they want to be able to do that. Therefore assisted suicide should become legal because people want to, and should be able to make their own decisions with their
I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
Terminally ill patients should have the legal option of physician-assisted suicide. Terminally ill patients deserve the right to control their own death. Legalizing assisted suicide would relive families of the burdens of caring for a terminally ill relative. Doctors should not be prosecuted for assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill patient. We as a society must protect life, but we must also recognize the right to a humane death. When a person is near death, in unbearable pain, they have the right to ask a physician to assist in ending their lives.
We believe all people have the freedom to make choices in their life, however, the question posed today is whether we have the freedom to choose our death. Some say absolutely. We should have the freedom to decide how we spend our last days. If they’re filled with pain, debilitating, and cause hardship on our loved ones, we should have the right to opt out. Others take the view that we didn’t choose our birth, therefore our death isn’t ours to choose either. This has caused much debate as moral, ethical and legal ramifications come into the mix. This in turn has led to defining the process under two different terms for legal purposes. They are euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Internationally, assisted suicide is a doctor prescribing
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
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.
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
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.
On the other hand, the proposition has previously argued that Euthanasia spares a terminally ill person from suffering intolerable pain and that it is cruel to deny a person’s right to die. We believe It is not our choice when or how to conclude our lives as we owe our lives to God and to God. If it was God’s plan for us to suffer, then we must obey. his orders. We believe that there may be value in a person’s
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because