The issue that I chose is the request to die. I found this very difficult to grasp. I don’t understand why someone would want to die. The conflict is if it’s okay to let them die or not? Some people say that it is their life and they can make their own choices. Some might say that nobody should die just because they want to. They might have a disease or illness were they might die either way. I will talk about the issue in relation to different views and theories. Autonomy and the relation to wanting to die I what I am going to talk about first.
Autonomy, in relation to my issue, is allowing the people who want to die die. They should be allowed to make their own decisions. “Autonomy refers to the right to make decisions about one’s own
…show more content…
I would say that this theory would say that it would be okay to let them die, but only if it benefits them. It wouldn’t be okay if it didn’t. “The theory is related to the ethical insight that an action is morally bad if it harms someone, whereas it is morally good if it helps or benefits someone” (Pg. 40, Introduction to Ethical Theory). If someone was to want to die because they had an illness that was going to kill them to where they had no chance at curing it, then it would benefit them from pain and suffering. If they had no illness where they were going to die and still wanted to, this theory would say that it would be wrong. My last theory is a deontological theory.
The deontological theory I chose is the Kantian Ethical theory. I thought this theory fit well with my issue because of the second formulation. “Act in regard to all persons in ways that treat them as ends in themselves and never simply as means to accomplish the ends of others” (pg. 95). It is saying to treat them as their own individual self. The theory would allow them to do what they wish because they are their own person and can make the decision themselves. If they want to die, it is their choice no matter what. I have talked about different opinions or view, but now I will talk about my own
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
A person that is suffering with the question to end his or her life, must have a deontological approach when making the final decision. A patient that is considering physician assisted suicide has considered the moral and obligational duties that come with the procedure. The person receiving care must think of his or her caretaker because ultimately they are the ones that endures the burden everyday of care. In the documentary, “The Suicide Tourist”, the husband spoke about the burden of feeling like he was punishing his wife for his disease. According to the deontological theory, the man felt as if it was morally wrong to continue living and feeling the way he did (Zaristky,
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
Today's society is now introduced to one of the most controversial issues; assisted suicide. Just like in other controversial arguments, there are many people that feel that it is wrong for people to ask their healthcare provider to end one's life; while others feel that if the person is terminally ill and has given their will to die, that they can be assisted in suicide. Though both sides are reasonable many people believe that people should not take part in helping someone take their own life, assisted suicide should be legal because, it plays a factor of conquering one’s feelings, gives an option to those whom are terminally ill or in immense pain, and every human
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
People think they have freedom to end their life by phrasing Right to Die. Who choose to die before the time they think that the best way to avoid pain and suffering from their sickness is to end their lives; thus, they may say that they have Right to Die since their excruciating condition of being sick of diseases or being alone.
Human life is intrinsically good, and ending life goes against what is good about the human life. The human life has a natural life expectancy and natural disasters like AIDS or Ebola. In accordance to the natural law, dying from AIDS or natural causes is morally permissible. Depending on the severity of the causes, they can either die a peaceful or a slow and painful death. But, most of the time death or an illness is uncertain. So, this issue makes people think about whether they want to partake in assisted suicide. The major obstacle is that there are people who believe in the natural law and are willing to endure the suffering for a long period. However, there are people who do not want to suffer a painful death. Assisted suicide may be the best option to end suffering. Assisted suicide would be the best option for Norma because it minimizes the suffering and maximizes the overall good. Because the utilitarian principle favors assisted suicide for those with natural illness like cancer, it is therefore morally justified.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
Most people afraid of death, but some (for many reasons ) desire to die. “The right to die “ is a controversial topic. “The right to die “is a concept based on the belief that a human being is entitled to end their own life or to undergo voluntary enthusiasm. According to “A crime of compassion “, Barbara Huttman, who is a nurse and has been taking care of depressed patients for almost 50 years. She wrote about Mac, a lung cancer patient.
According to Immanuel Kant, a person has dignity that makes him autonomous. Thus, the decision of the autonomous patient to die has intrinsic value. Because patients are rational agent, they are able to make their own decision based on reason. A rational patient will reason that if continued existence is full of suffering and no-hope for better well-being, therefore, the best option is to discontinue his/her life to save him/herself from that future condition. It is the patient’s approach to manage his/her own life. Dan W. Brock is right in his article “Voluntary Active Euthanasia” when he said that, “self-determination [or autonomy] has fundamental value… [because]… individual [can] control the manner, circumstances, and timing of their dying and death” (75). The dignity of the patient lies in their “capacity to direct their lives” (Brock 75).
Deontological ethics is a normative theory based on performing your duty and obligations; focusing on what the right action is regardless of the consequences. We are only worthy of happiness when we do our moral duty, which applies to everyone, everywhere, and always. Stoicism, a form of deontological theory is the belief that although you do not control the outside world you can control how you react to it. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who promoted deontological theory; also known as non-consequentialism. He prized autonomy and freedom, believing life was about more than happiness, it was about doing one’s duty.
If someone is suffering from a terminal illness and wishes to die on their own terms, they might believe they are obligated to euthanasia. However under categorical imperative, suicide would be morally incorrect as people are doing so to ease their own sufferings. They are doing so to achieve self-benefits, and considered selfish, even if they are in pain. Therefore I believe deontology to be wrong or flawed rather, as it does not address the circumstances that make self-driven actions and goals correct. I think given that each individual’s lives are unique and different, there should be some tolerance to personal actions, goals and the beliefs each person values.
However, the second theory stating, “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,” permits the inequalities of treatment under certain conditions. Liberties can be restricted provided that the restrictions are for the benefit of all. In contradiction to this theory, the Natural Law Ethics, supports the idea that the rightness of actions can be determined by nature itself, rather than by the laws and customs or principles of society and individuals. This theory provides strong implications for end of life issues. This theory suggests using ordinary means to find a cure or be healed but there is no requirement to use extraordinary means. For me, I believe every life has a purpose and helping others as much as one can, and if you have the ability to save a life by performing extraordinary measures, one should do it, which is a major reason I do not conform to the Natural Law of Ethics.