In 2007, Jack Kevorkian, who is also known as “Dr. Death”, gave a televised interview regarding his views on physician assisted suicide (Neal). He has been released from prison only several months prior to the interview: Kevorkian was ordered to serve a 10 to 25 year long prison sentence for euthanizing over 100 patients between the years of 1990 and 1992 (Neal). By his own admission, Kevorkian administered euthanasia to multiple patients and did so without pangs of conscience. In the highly publicized interview of 2007, Dr. Death quoted an eminent Scottish philosopher David Hume, who famously proclaimed that “no-one throws away a life that is worth keeping” (Neal). When asked to justify his views, Kevorkian made his position clear: the patient has the moral right to decide whether his or her life is worth living, society should never usurp that right from him. To deprive the individual of the liberty to take his or her own life is tantamount to depriving the individual of other inalienable rights such as for example, the right to free expression, or the right to practice a religion of his choice (Neal).
Although Kevorkian’s thesis strikes many Americans as outlandish, if not barbaric, David Hume was not the only eminent philosopher whose ideas can be used to corroborate an argument that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Another renowned social philosopher, John Stuart Mill famously exclaimed that an individual is always sovereign over his or her body (Pojman). Therefore, an individual should have the liberty to harm him or herself, provided only that the self-inflicting injuries do not cause others to suffer. On this basis, John Stuart Mill defended suicide. The philosophical viewpoints of...
... middle of paper ...
...l three of the aforementioned schools of thought in moral philosophy, it is imperative that physician assisted suicide is administered only under those three conditions.
Works Cited
Crisp, Roger and Slote, Michael. “Virtue Ethics” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Print, 1997.
Neal, Nicole. “Between the Dying and the Dead: Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s life and the Battle for Legalized Euthanasia.” Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Print, 2006.
Pojman, Luis. “Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong.” New York: Wadsworth Publishing. Print, 2002.
Darwall, Stephen. “Deontology.” New York: Wiley-Blackwell publishing. Print, 2002.
Mulgan, Tim. “Understanding Utilitarianism.” New York: Acumen Publishing. Print, 2007.
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
Let's mention a known name in the euthanasia field, Dr. Jack Kevorkian. If this name sounds unfamiliar, then you have been one of the lucky few people to have been living in a cave for the last nine years. Dr. Kevorkian is considered to some as a patriarch, here to serve mankind. Yet others consider him to be an evil villain, a devil's advocate so to speak. Physician assisted suicide has not mentioned in the news recently. But just as you are reading this paper and I'm typing, it's happening. This hyperlink will take you to a web page that depicts in depth how many people Dr. Kevorkian has assisted in taking their lives.
In March of 1998, a woman suffering with cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs. This law does not include people who have been on a life support system, nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. Many people worry that legalizing doctor-assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine, and it has been argued that the reason why some terminally ill patients yearn to commit suicide is nothing more than depression. Physician Assisted Suicide would lessen the human life or end the suffering and pain of those on the verge of dying; Physician Assisted Suicide needs to be figured out for those in dire need of it or for those fighting against it. The main purpose of this paper is to bring light on the advantages and disadvantages of physician-assisted suicide and to show what principled and moral reasoning there is behind each point.
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a topic, which proponents often support by the affirmation of patient free will or as the exercise of patient autonomy. The purpose of this paper is to examine this argument further from an inter-disciplinary approach, regarding PAS from medical, ethical and legal standpoints and to examine the concept of free will from the philosophical discipline. Are these concepts compatible in a meaningful context and can a sound argument be constructed to support PAS on the basis of patient free will?
The issue of physician assisted suicide has been around for quite a while. There has been many court cases on it to make it legalized but all of it has been struck down by the Supreme Court. What seem to be a lost cause in the past is now becoming a real possibility as America moves further into the twenty-first century. As citizens increase their support for PAS, many states are beginning to draft bills to legalize this cause, with tough restriction and regulation of course. In 1997, Oregon became the first state to legalized physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Soon after, three other states (Washington, Vermont, and Montana) follow Oregon’s footstep while two other states are inching closer to making this procedure legal. Even so, there are still many people against PAS and are constantly fighting this from becoming legal. With the rise of popularity on this issue, the debate on whether one has the right to end their life, and the morality of this issue are reason why the UTA community should care about this topic and why it is worth exploring the three position concerning PAS. In this paper, I will discuss the three main position on this debate: that physician assisted suicide should be illegal, that physician assisted suicide should be limited to terminally ill patient, and that physician assisted suicide should be available for everyone.
The most argued issue with assisted suicide is grounded in morals and religion. The sanctity of life is the philosophy that human life is sacred and should be protected from any form of v...
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some argue that society should honor the freedom of one’s choice to take his own life with the assistance of a physician; however, given the reasoning provided, it is in society’s best interest that physician assisted suicide remain illegal. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized because suicidal people experience distorted judgments resulting in not being mentally equipped to make such a decision, people who feel they are a burden to their family may choose death as a result, and physicians should not have to go against their personal doctrines and promises.
According to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, between 1990 and 1999, a well-known advocate for physician assisted suicide, Jack Kevorkian helped 130 patients end their lives. He began the debate on assisted suicide by assisting a man with committing suicide on national television. According to Dr. Kevorkian, “The voluntary self-elimination of individual and mortally diseased or crippled lives taken collectively can only enhance the preservation of public health and welfare” (Kevorkian). In other words, Kevor...
Physician Assisted Suicide is a freedom of choice. According to ecologist John Barlow “Exercising choice over the time and place of one’s death, once death is a certainty and there is no hope, is the ultimate personal dignity” (McCuen153). Considering Physician Assisted Suicide offers people a choice when end of life care fails to provide adequate relief of suffering. Having that freedom can be a peaceful and freeing experience. Dr. Charles McKhann believed “The decision to die, with or without the help, is exceedingly difficult, with many questions to examine and conflicts to resolve” (McKhann 234). This decision is ultimately made by the patient after a deliberation with doctors abou...
Newman, E. (1996). Making the final choice: Should physician-assisted suicide be legalized? San Diego, CA: Truth Seeker Co., Inc.
“In 1999, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician known for openly advertising that he would perform assisted suicide despite the fact that it was illegal, was convicted of second-degree murder” (Lee). The fact of the matter is human being...
Cotton, Paul. "Medicine's Position Is Both Pivotal And Precarious In Assisted Suicide Debate." The Journal of the American Association 1 Feb. 1995: 363-64.
New York: New York University Press, 2012. Print. The. Kuhse, Helga. A. “Euthanasia.” A Companion to Ethics.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.