Part 1: Ethical Question
" Do people have a right to end their lives whenever they choose to?"
Part 2: Introduction
Death is something that happens every day yet is a topic that is most avoid. Some may argue that the ability to choose to end's one life is a personal decision, while others may feel like it's something that should be discussed with family and friends. Is there a right answer? People all over the world make the decision to end their life every day. However, the question posed is should individuals have the right to end their lives whenever there choose to or should there be stipulations and regulations to such decisions. In certain situations, a person is facing much pain that they feel there is no hope and best to just end it all. Who has the right to determine how much a person can take? As physicians are looked to for guidance and education for their situation, most trust and go with the doctor’s orders
…show more content…
Ending Life
3
Part 3: Explanation of the Ethical Theory
For the theory, I will speak on utilitarianism. Utilitarianism as defined by Jon Stuart Mill is a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill Jon 2008)”. John Stuart, a nineteenth-century philosopher, argued that individuals, ultimately, are the best guardians of their interests. Utilitarianism suggests that the basis of morality is in what encourages happiness or pleasure without pain. It represents that what is done is for the good of the surroundings. An important thing to remember about utilitarianism is that being happy or pleased can be different in each person.
The act utilitarian focuses on the results or consequences of the actions taken. Regardless of the action that is chosen it should always bring a greater outcome in the situation.
Part 4: Application of the Ethical
Euthanasia is one of the most complicated issues in the medical field due to the debate of whether or not it is morally right. Today, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in medicine and technology. But we are still unable to find cures to all illnesses, and patients have to go through extremely painful treatments only to live a little bit longer. These patients struggle with physical and psychological pain. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the topic of just and unjust laws in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which brings into question whether it is just to kill a patient who is suffering or unjust to take that person’s life even if that person is suffering. In my opinion people should have the right, with certain restrictions, to end their lives in the way they see fit if they are suffering from endless pain.
However, the framework in practice is very complex, and has various inconsistencies, such as the legality of refusing treatment, the sovereignty of a living will and the issue of prosecuting those who assist someone to end their lives. There is evidence that shows doctors using palliative sedation as a means to facilitate death in patients that are in extreme pain and the use of limiting or even stopping treatment at the patient’s request is not uncommon. The difficulties of putting the law into practice make it extremely difficult for courts, legislators and doctors to reach clear decisions on individual cases. Therefore, the inconsistencies in the legal framework need to be addressed, as with these present the argument against legalising the right to die is weakened. Legalising assisted dying would simplify the framework and ensure that set barriers and safeguards could be created in order to protect the patient and his/her
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.
Utilitarianism provides a method for calculating the moral worth of specific actions in terms of their consequences. Utilitarianism teaches that happiness comprises the fundamental purpose and pursuit of human life. Therefore, the value and worth of any given action should be evaluated in terms of its ability to produce happiness. The utilitarian defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and teaches that in all cases individuals should act in such a way as to achieve the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism...
. Should people have the moral right to end their lives if they so please?
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
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
Thesis Statement: Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia may offer an accelerated and pain relieved alternative to end someone’s suffering, therefore people should not be denied the right to die especially when faced with terminal illnesses.
Pain and suffering is one reason people support euthanasia. “Pain-relief treatment could or even would shorten life”. (32) Yet, it is justified if the purpose is to comfort and relieve pain. Providing adequate amount of pain-relief treatment is also a way to extend life. It lessens the patient’s distress psychologically and physically. (Somerville) Going beyond the limit by overdosing the patient will poison the body and hastens death. In this case, it is unacceptable because its intention is to kill a person’s life and not to comfort.
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.
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
Utilitarianism can be defined as: the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians seem to believe that humans only have two desires, or motivations: happiness and pain. They want as much happiness as possible and the least amount of pain as any other action. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that whether it is right, depends solely on its consequences.
In this assignment we will be identifying an ethical dilemma an individual has experienced. We will begin with a short introduction of what an ethical dilemma is, moving on to providing brief details of the dilemma an individual has experienced. We will then go on to selecting one ethical theory, to show how it can help an individual understand and deal with the situation when placed within, followed by a conclusion.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because