As I examined the many reading and arguments we studied throughout this class J. David Velleman’s view on assisted suicide were very compelling to me made me examine my own beliefs. Although I do not agree with many of his view, I t did make me wonder if his views were shaped by his own illness and his real life experiences. I find his views on death with dignity and value of life to be though provoking.
My views on assisted suicide come from my personal experiences. I do believe that personal experiences shape many of the ideals we hold and give us a different perspective. Although they are subjective, they provide us an insight to situations that those who hold opinions based solely on moral, religious or ethical views will never have.
…show more content…
He does not believe that a person has a right to shorten their own life if in doing so it makes life better overall. He does however believe that a person should have the right to make decisions based on their own interest. I believe that both are our rights. We don’t often think of the value of our lives until we or someone we love is sick or suffering. Then value of time with that person, value they may get from medical, spiritual, or emotional support is all we can think about. So in Velleman’s belief that we cannot shorten our lives if the end result is to make it better, I believe is wrong. Is this not all about giving it more value? I think it is. When we choose to get treatment for whatever illness we may have the goal of that treatment is to add value to our lives or make it over all better. If it were not why would we do it? The two go hand in hand, treatment =value and value makes our life better. So choosing to end our lives instead of getting treatment should be also looked at as giving life more value and should be as much a personal choice as …show more content…
In my life I have lost many close family members to disease and illness. I have watched them waste away from the ravages of Alzheimer’s, AIDS, cancer and kidney failure. Each time their lack of choice leads them to treatment that only prolonged their pain and suffering and offered no hope. It is because of these experiences that I am a strong proponent of assisted suicide. Hospice care was the choice we made for each of them. Although it gave them relief from their pain it did not provide them with any value of life. We would never consider hospice care assisted suicide but there are decisions made that do help to shorten the lives of those that have this care. Most people on hospice are given morphine, or some derivative of it, to help them be “comfortable”. Morphine is a respiratory depressant and as the body systems begin to shut down the morphine does not get metabolizes as efficiently so eventually it will depress their respiratory system and eventually stop their heart. This is the hard truth about the end of life for many. It is at this time of the dying process that patient and their family member, with the guidance from doctors and nurses and safe medication practices, make the decisions on how often to give this medication. If it is ok at this time to help shorten a life, why is it not ok to let this same person chose to end their life with the same form of medication at the time of their
Assisted suicide and euthanasia is a controversial issue all over the world, and it leads to debate as to whether or not an individual should be allowed to decide the moment and form of one’s death, along with the
...their own life and die with their own dignity is huge thing among anyone. No one should be denied the right to leave this earth if they are in constant and terrible pain. But people were also asked whether physician-assisted suicide should be allowed for people in severe pain who aren't terminally ill or for those with disabilities and the outcome was, “a solid majority — 71 percent — opposed the idea, with only 29 percent in favor of it. The results were the same as in 2011.” (Hensley, 2012). The whole idea of having physician-assisted suicide is for a patient with a severe illness with months to live is to go out in peace and without any complications. Overall, physician-assisted suicide has many pros and cons but the main issue is the patient. It should not be up to anybody except the dying patient. There are only four states that have legalized assisted-suicide.
Did you know, about 57% of physicians today have received a request for physician assisted suicide due to suffering from a terminally ill patient. Suffering has always been a part of human existence, and these requests have been occurring since medicine has been around. Moreover, there are two principles that all organized medicine agree upon. The first one is physicians have a responsibility to relieve pain and suffering of dying patients in their care. The second one is physicians must respect patients’ competent decisions to decline life-sustaining treatment. Basically, these principles state the patients over the age of 18 that are mentally stable have the right to choose to end their life if they are suffering from pain. As of right now, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have legalized physician assisted suicide through legislation. Montana has legalized it via court ruling. The first Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) became effective in Oregon in 1997. Washington and Vermont later passed this act in 2009, and Montana passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 2008. One concern with physician assisted suicide is confusion of the patient’s wishes. To get rid of any confusion and provide evidence in case someone becomes terminally ill, people should make an advanced care plan. The two main lethal drugs that are used during physician assisted suicide are secobarbital and pentobarbital. Appropriate reporting is necessary when distributing these drugs and performing the suicide in order to publish an analysis. Studies found a large number of people accepted this procedure under certain circumstances; therefore, physician assisted suicide should be legal in the United States because terminally ill patients over the age of 18 that are...
My article, “Assisted Suicide: A Right or Wrong” by Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez, discusses the importance of making assisted suicide something to consider when the patient is in pain and does not want to deal with the pain anymore. This article tells the very personal, detailed story of Matthew Donnelly and his time spent before he died. This article was written to open the eyes of people who are against assisted suicide to show them a case where the writers believe it would be acceptable to grant Donnelly’s wish and assisted him in ending his life. The purpose of this text is to be able to persuade the readers to see their point of view and hopefully get them to be for assisted suicide. The authors hope to achieve the well-assisted
With the growing debate on the legality of physician assisted suicide happening in the United States,it is important for everyone to know the position that are being advocated. Having a full sense of knowledge on the conversation taking place gives people who are interested on this topic the necessary tool to draw their own conclusion on how they should feel on this particular issue. Even if someone is not interested in this topic on a cultural level, they should in a personal sense because it might affect their family or themselves one day. In a way this issue and debate affects everyone because there might be a possibility that we acquire a terminal illness, and when this happen we are either denied the option of PAS or granted that option, depending the status of it.
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
One of the greatest dangers facing chronic and terminally ill patients is the grey area regarding PAS. In the Netherlands, there are strict criteria for the practice of PAS. Despite such stringencies, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1992) found 28% of the PAS cases in the Netherlands did not meet the criteria. The evidence suggests some of the patient’s lives may have ended prematurely or involuntarily. This problem can be addressed via advance directives. These directives would be written by competent individuals explaining their decision to be aided in dying when they are no longer capable of making medical decisions. These interpretations are largely defined by ones morals, understanding of ethics, individual attitudes, religious and cultural values.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
Keeping a person alive who is in pain and terminally ill does not keep the person from a painful death or from dying. Doing so only causes the person to die slower and makes the process of it worse than it would have been. Letting the patient choose the time of their death is not only merciful to the patient being euthanized, but it is also merciful to the family, friends, and loved ones to the patient. In the article “Death With Dignity: Choices and Challenges” by Faye Girsh, it gives an example of a merciful death by physician assisted suicide that puts ease on both the family and the patient as the article
The legalization of assisted suicide has been a controversial topic that has created a divide within the medical community, as well as the general public, for many years. Assisted suicide occurs when a patient decides to take their own life, with help from their doctor. The doctor can end the patient’s life without causing any additional pain or suffering. While some believe that assisted suicide should be legal for patients who are suffering from a terminal and painful condition, others argue that it is unethical and going against the doctor’s oath to help and not harm their patients. As the average life expectancy age increases, people are living longer while also having to live with more serious illnesses. As a result, lives are ending with a great amount of suffering and pain, rather then dying peacefully. Since death is ultimately inevitable, I will therefore argue in favor of the proposition that assisted suicide should be legal for those capable of making a rationale end of life decision.
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
Life is essentially a constant victory over death. Although this feat seems ideal, there is a category of society that wishes to lose. Some of these people turn to assisted suicide in order to fulfill their ultimate desires. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont are currently the only states that allow this act to be carried out. Commonly assumed to be synonymous to euthanasia, the most palpable difference between to two is who performs the task. In euthanasia, a physician will administer a lethal dosage of medicine, while assisted suicide is characterized by the patient administering it to him or herself. As the issue of legalization gains more momentum, a general argument has formed for the most popular opinions. Supporters believe in “death with dignity,” while the opposing side views assisted suicide as the gateway to physicians killing their patients. Being the first state to legalize assisted suicide, what views did Oregon consider when making the decision?
The right to assisted suicide is an intricate topic posed upon those in the United States and several other countries throughout the world. Assisted suicide proposes a controversy of whether or not a person has a right to solicit death through the help of a licensed physician. This issue has sparked an intense moral controversy.
First, there are those who agree with assisted suicide, arguing that a person should have the choice to end one’s own life, to end one’s prolonged pain and suffering. According to Soo Borson, terminally ill diseases like dementia and Alzheimer 's kill, but very slowly and rob a person of their mind long before their body is physically ready to die. Once that happens to the patient, the path is filled with great anguish for the one’s around the patient as well. Personally, I have lived with two grandparents suffering from dementia, and one who suffered with both lung cancer and dementia. It is a sad sight to see how their minds faded and how the disease caused both grandparents to change into people I couldn’t even recognize anymore. According to Andre and Velasquez, medicine and technology have allowed people to live longer lives, but have also allowed people
Some feel that a terminally ill patient should have a legal right to control the manner in which they die. Physicians and nurses have fought for the right to aid a patient in their death. Many families of the terminally ill have exhausted all of their funds caring for a dying patient and would prefer the option of assisted suicide to bankruptcy. While there are many strong opposing viewpoints, one of the strongest is that the terminally ill patient has the right to die in a humane, dignified manner. However, dignity in dying is not necessarily assured when a trusted doctor, whose professional ethics are to promote and maintain life, injects a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of morphine.