Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Assisted suicide debate essay
Assisted suicide debate essay
Assisted suicide ethical dilemma
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Assisted suicide debate essay
Assisted Suicide
People are probaly confused at the fact that society approving people to be euthanized. Obviously, if it was stated in a letter to the editor in the Detroit Free Press entitled, “Death, Dignity.” The writer is simply saying it’s okay to end lives. It also states that John Engler, our state government, is supporting two important projects that assist in these suicides. Engler is trying to establish Michigan to be a national leader in death with dignity (Death, Dignity). That doesn’t sound like dying with dignity to me. I think assisted suicide is wrong and we should take an account that killing yourself isn’t dignified.
First of all the writer self-contradicts him/her self. The editorial is stating how wrong Kevorkian was and how crude his methods were for helping people to their deaths (Death, Dignity). But, the writer is clearly stating that what John Engler is trying to promote assisted suicides and that they it’s okay to euthanize someone if the government does it. Michigan has coalition air ads promoting assisted suicides. These ads were paid for by Citizens for Compassionate Care Group of doctors, churches, and disabled rights advocates raised $5 million dollars to have people be assisted to their deaths. Gary Pokorny, president of the Grand Rapids-based Hanon McKendry firm that produced the television ads, said the ads would run in all state television markets through Thursday at a cost of $200,000. “We should be thinking about killing the pain, not the patient” (Michigan: Coalition Airs Ads Promoting Assisted Suicide Alternatives, pg.1). That’s an
abscene amount of money to be wasting on killing someone. Just think of where that money could have been useful at: childcare and regular hospitals, homeless shelters, feeding the hungry, building new homes, etc. Instead it was used to kill someone. How selfish and inhumane that is. Why don’t they just slit their wrist, which doesn’t cost anything?
Next the writer enthocentrized the story. He/she assumes that what methods Kevorkian was using was wrong, but the governments methods are way better. That doesn’t make any sense, Kevorkian was trying to help the terminally ill only. Where as the government wants to use these projects to assist people that are perfectly healthy to their deaths.
Finally the writer hasty generalizes the editorial in the second to last paragraph. “What people mainly want is some assurance of personal control and dignity, freedom from pain and faith that their last wishes will be honored” (Death, Dignity).
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.
Physicians face an ethical dilemma when confronting their patients who are suffering. Many have to choose between abiding by the law or ignoring the law and acting on their own beliefs by assisting in a patient’s suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is certainly one doctor who has taken the illegal route in assisting in many of his patients suicides. In “Killer Doc,” William F. Buckley provides a brief overview of the case and informs his audience of the shocking incidents of Kevorkian’s performed euthanasia on Thomas Youk. In “Offering a Helping Hand to those Who Long to Die,” Mark Nichols compares the famous euthanasia doctors, Dr. Kevorkian and Austrailia’s Dr. Philip Nitschke.
Killing or assisting in suicide is not a morally indifferent act. Dr. Kevorkian says, “My intent was only to relieve their suffering, an act that inevitably killed the person.” He justified his acts, because most of his patients had Lou Gehrig’s Disease and could not feed or care for themselves (Murphy, 1999). Although only the good effect was intended, the bad effect (death) was the means to the good effect. The proportionality between the good and bad effect must be analyzed for each specific case. Dr. Kevorkian’s acts violated at least two of the principles of double effect, so they are not ethically justified.
Imagine that you have been diagnosed with a terminal illness such as cancer and given six months to live. The remainder of your life will be spent in a hospital undergoing treatment and suffering from unbearable pain. Do you want to die or do you want to live the rest of your life in agony? The controversial issue of doctor assisted suicide is followed by a big question. Should states legalize doctor assisted suicide? Physician assisted suicide gives the right for physicians to administer to certain patients lethal doses of drugs with the intention of ending a patients life (Coburn 266). My research for this argument was based on Jack Kervorkian, better known as "doctor death." He has admitted helping more than 130 people end their lives (BBC News Online Network). Kevorkian is from Michigan and has stood trial a number of times for practicing physician assisted suicide. In his latest trial, April 13, 1999, he was charged with a second-degree murder conviction with a penalty of 10-25 years imprisonment with no possibility of bail (Hyde). Dr. Jack Kevorkian stated in the trial that it was his "duty as a doctor" to help patients end their suffering by taking their own lives (Lessenberry 16). In my argument I am going to discuss the issue of whether or not he should have been found guilty of murder. Assisting anyone in death is murder and the court was correct when they charged Kevorkian guilty of murder.
gotten to the point where they feel as if there is no point in living.
I understood the reasoning to writing this article and the effect it would have on any person who is affected by their emotions. The article’s major topic it’s arguing is the right to have the choice of assisted suicide. In this article, there are many points they hit and discuss pertaining to political and cultural points. The political points discussed in the article are the Acts in California they want to put into place on allowing assisted suicide by physicians. They briefly discuss the legal documents and the proper process when termination is requested. The cultural points the article talk about is the way people are living and judging how this shouldn’t be done and it’s against the moral standings of human
1. What is the difference between a. and a. The slippery slope argument for assisted suicide is a straightforward one to see and prove. In essence, it says that if assisted suicide is allowed without any principled lines or divisions, then we must allow for assisted suicide in cases like that of “a sixteen-year-old suffering from a severe case of unrequited love.” First we must acknowledge the assumption that the Supreme Court has made, which is, there are no principled lines they can draw between the different cases of assisted suicide.
Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a very important issue. It is also important tounderstand the terms and distinction between the varying degrees to which a person can be involved in hastening the death of a terminally ill individual. Euthanasia, a word that is often associated with physician assisted suicide, means the act or practice of killing for reasons of mercy. Assisted suicide takes place when a dying person who wishes to precipitate death, requests help in carrying out the act. In euthanasia, the dying patients may or may not be aware of what is happening to them and may or may not have requested to die. In an assisted suicide, the terminally ill person wants to die and has specifically asked for help. Physician-assisted suicide occurs when the individual assisting in the suicide is a doctor rather than a friend or family member. Because doctors are the people most familiar with their patients’ medical condition and have knowledge of and access to the necessary means to cause certain death, terminally ill patients who have made
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.
Schneider Keith, “DR. Jack Kevorkian Dies at 83; A Doctor who helped End Lives”. The New York Times. Arthur Sulzberger Jr. 3, June 2011. Online Newspaper 2014
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...
Margaret Somerville, who has authored, edited, and co-edited a number of books and newspaper articles opposing the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and who also is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University, Montreal, wrote the internet article titled “Against Euthanasia.” In the article Somerville blatantly states that any type of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is completely and totally wrong under all circumstances. She offers the two major reasons why she considers the practice of euthanasia to be entirely immoral and unacceptable. The first main reason that is given is, “that it is wrong for one human to intentionally kill another, except in self-defense.”The second key reason she provides is, “that the harms and risks of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide far outweigh any benefits” . Somerville believes that euthanasia proponents base their arguments on emotions rather than on logic and use dramatic and compelling stories to make their points. She later goes on to say, “To legalize euthanasia would fundamentally change the way we understand ourselves, human life and its meaning." It is also stated that if euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are made legal then abuse and over use are inevitable and unstoppable. Another point made in the article is that if doctors and nurses are allowed to assist in the deaths of their patients that the trustworthiness of doctors would be skewed and patients would live in fear of going to the hospital and receiving care for whatever illness, disease, or problem they may have (Somerville). She brings her article to a close by stressing...
“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...
Death is something inevitable which all human beings must have to face today or tomorrow, or some part of their life.There are many people around the world sinking their lives in the darkness of dignity. Each and every day individuals all throughout the U.S. are diagnosed with terminal illness. They are compelled to wait until they die naturally, at the same time their bodies deteriorate by their sickness that will eventually take their lives. Some of the time, this implies living excruciating pain ,and that most states in our nation cannot do anything about it legally. People should have the will to live or die as the death of dignity is one of those acts that promotes this behavior , as a result it should be legalized all over the states,
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