Assisted Suicide
The concept of assisted suicide for the terminally ill, as it is now, is subjected to tremendous controversy. Many people believe that it is morally wrong to commit suicide. As such, in a response to an article in The Seattle Times on euthanasia, Reverend Susan J. O’Shea argues that we should not have euthanasia because it is murder. Reverend O’Shea’s argument starts off with her own personal reasons on why she does not support euthanasia. Then, she focuses on the idea that many of the reasons why people would want to commit assisted suicide are solely cultural, not medical. On the contrary, her argument is logically wrong, in a sense. The problem with this is that her argument is comprised of several fallacies, where some
…show more content…
O’Shea would most likely say that these stories that are trying to rationalize such behaviors are more than enough proof to support her argument against the matter. The problem with that counterargument is that these stories are more likened to opinions on the subjects at hand, and are not exactly the best evidence to persuade the readers. In fact, most of these stories the author may have heard are most likely opinions that are not of a trustworthy source or background. The ones who tell these stories are usually those who are not an expert in the field on, say, the medical field or the psychology behind criminals. O’Shea, herself, is not an expert in any of the fields, so she cannot properly defend these stories, either. Not only that, even if the sources O’Shea got to support her argument were experts on the medical field or criminology, it does not mean that they are experts on the issue of assisted suicide …show more content…
One major possible counterargument would be that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide violate the Hippocratic Oath, the earliest set of medical ethical ideas written. The oath dictates that as a physician, one must do things that are beneficial for the patient, and one must not try to harm his patients. The patient has the right to refuse treatment, and that the patient has the right to dignity. The physician must tell the truth and honest, as well as be fair in their treatments for patient. As such, euthanasia violates the oath as it would mean that physicians are not doing what is best for their patient, and they are trying to harm them. This counterargument is not a threat to my position as it one of the common arguments to that is the fact that the patients have a right to dignity, and that the physician is meeting the need and care for their patient at any stage of their life and illness. Another point against their argument is that the physician has done everything they have in their repertoire to help prolong their patient’s life, and so in a way, the physician has fulfilled their duty to aid the patient as much as they
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.
Gay-Williams, J. 1992, ‘The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia’ in Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, ed Munson, R., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
Euthanasia - Pro and Con & nbsp; Abstract & nbsp; This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are. required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective. favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall. endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia. & nbsp; Thesis Statement & nbsp; Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to.
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.
Daniel Challahan attempts to argue that Euthanasia is always seriously morally wrong in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok.” Callahan discusses several reasons depicting why he believes that Euthanasia is morally impermissible. John Lachs, however, does not see validity in several of Callahan’s points and responds to them in his article, “When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok.” Two points from Callahan’s article Lachs challenges are the fundamental moral wrong view and the subjectiveness of suffering.
“It’s Over, Debbie” an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, written by an anonymous person, sparks a heated debate concerning the nature of euthanasia. The article is written from the perspective of gynecology resident’s. After analyzing the patient’s condition, he gives her a twenty milligram dose of morphine sulfate. This amount of dose is not concerned lethal; however, given the patient’s underweight body and medical condition was enough to kill her. The problem arises in determining whether this was active or passive euthanasia. Due to the ambiguous wording of the article, the answer can vary from reader to reader. For example, the anonymous author describes how the nurse gave the resident hurried details,
In their case decision about euthanasia are in hands of his or her family and not always are good for those who are ill. However, even in a situation where the person taking this decision it is fully aware of , and indeed it wants , it is not morally ambiguous. The main arguments which they appear , refer mainly to metaphysical questions . It is said here that man has no right to decide about his death, just as you do not decide about the birth . Opponents believe that every human being has appointed his own time to live and he has no right to interfere in it . If we assume that the decision maker on these matters is God , this discussion is theoretically resolved . If God is the giver of life and his Lord , then only he can decide about death - that is independent of religion , which point of view we
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
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
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are suffering from euthanasia.
Although the desire to give the most humane ending possible to a suffering individual is honorable, mercy killing is essentially murder. Merely excusing the fact that euthanasia is murder by arguing that it is implemented with good intentions is faulty reasoning. This would be analogous to condoning the act of stealing simply because it was done to relieve the suffering of hunger. Murder is a crime for a reason; it is the deliberate ending of a person 's life. Richard Huxtable, author of four books on euthanasia, advocates that, "...[life] should never intentionally be brought to a premature end" (58). In making this comment, Huxtable urges us to realize that utilizing assisted suicide can cut short one 's endowment of life. While it can be perceived as a compassionate alternative to prolonged suffering, the ethical considerations behind physician-assisted suicide demand careful
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.
Williams, J. R., Lowy, F., & Sawyer, D. M. (1993). Canadian physicians and euthanasia: 3. Arguments and beliefs . Ethical Issues, 10, 1699-1702.