Essay Color Key

Free Essays
Unrated Essays
Better Essays
Stronger Essays
Powerful Essays
Term Papers
Research Papers




Medical Ethics

Rate This Paper:

Length: 776 words (2.2 double-spaced pages)
Rating: Red (FREE)      
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


     Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
     Daniel Callahan, author of When Self-Determination Runs Amok, is against any social policy that would allow for PAS to be practiced. Callahan believes that the argument for PAS does not have a firm foundation, because self-determination and mercy, the two principles that are in support of PAS, may become separated (711). If mercy is seen as a core element in support of PAS, why restrict PAS only to those who can ask for it -- don't the unconscious or incompetent deserve mercy also?
     Callahan is in opposition to the belief that the essence of human dignity is the notion that a person should be free to choose how and when they want to die. Callahan questions the absolute nature of autonomy and self-determination and the extent to which these values can be applied. Self-determination by definition entails human freedom of action and respect for persons but those in support of PAS want it to be restricted to those who are terminally ill. Human suffering and an individual‘s outlook on the quality of their life, are, in Callahan’s opinion, subjective and there is no one standard to compare individual suffering. If we just focus on autonomy/self-determination, why restrict PAS only to those who are terminally ill and competent? Are the incompetent less deserving of relief from suffering than the those competent individuals? If physician-assisted suicide is legally permitted yet restricted to the terminally ill adult with full decision-making capacity, it will certainly raise legal concerns about discrimination. PAS will probably broaden to include incompetent, non-consenting, and non–terminally ill persons. The final extreme of the slippery slope argument is that PAS will be abused, run amok and ultimately become involuntary euthanasia.

     Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
     Daniel Callahan, author of When Self-Determination Runs Amok, is against any social policy that would allow for PAS to be practiced. Callahan believes that the argument for PAS does not have a firm foundation, because self-determination and mercy, the two principles that are in support of PAS, may become separated (711). If mercy is seen as a core element in support of PAS, why restrict PAS only to those who can ask for it -- don't the unconscious or incompetent deserve mercy also?
     Callahan is in opposition to the belief that the essence of human dignity is the notion that a person should be free to choose how and when they want to die. Callahan questions the absolute nature of autonomy and self-determination and the extent to which these values can be applied. Self-determination by definition entails human freedom of action and respect for persons but those in support of PAS want it to be restricted to those who are terminally ill. Human suffering and an individual‘s outlook on the quality of their life, are, in Callahan’s opinion, subjective and there is no one standard to compare individual suffering. If we just focus on autonomy/self-determination, why restrict PAS only to those who are terminally ill and competent? Are the incompetent less deserving of relief from suffering than the those competent individuals If physician-assisted suicide is legally permitted yet restricted to the terminally ill adult with full decisionxs-making capacity, it will certainly raise legal concerns about discrimination. PAS will probably broaden to include incompetent, non-consenting, and non–terminally ill persons. The final extreme of the slippery slope argument is that PAS will be abused, run amok and ultimately become involuntary euthanasia.

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"Medical Ethics." 123HelpMe.com. 22 Oct 2014
    <http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=76824>.




Related Searches





Important Note: If you'd like to save a copy of the paper on your computer, you can COPY and PASTE it into your word processor. Please, follow these steps to do that in Windows:

1. Select the text of the paper with the mouse and press Ctrl+C.
2. Open your word processor and press Ctrl+V.

Company's Liability

123HelpMe.com (the "Web Site") is produced by the "Company". The contents of this Web Site, such as text, graphics, images, audio, video and all other material ("Material"), are protected by copyright under both United States and foreign laws. The Company makes no representations about the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or timeliness of the Material or about the results to be obtained from using the Material. You expressly agree that any use of the Material is entirely at your own risk. Most of the Material on the Web Site is provided and maintained by third parties. This third party Material may not be screened by the Company prior to its inclusion on the Web Site. You expressly agree that the Company is not liable or responsible for any defamatory, offensive, or illegal conduct of other subscribers or third parties.

The Materials are provided on an as-is basis without warranty express or implied. The Company and its suppliers and affiliates disclaim all warranties, including the warranty of non-infringement of proprietary or third party rights, and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The Company and its suppliers make no warranties as to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or timeliness of the material, services, text, graphics and links.

For a complete statement of the Terms of Service, please see our website. By obtaining these materials you agree to abide by the terms herein, by our Terms of Service as posted on the website and any and all alterations, revisions and amendments thereto.



Return to 123HelpMe.com

Copyright © 2000-2014 123HelpMe.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Service