More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues about assisted suicide
Debate over euthanasia and assisted suicide
Ethical issues about assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Mental Health and Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide
It is obvious to the TV viewer that under the banners of compassion and autonomy, some are calling for legal recognition of a "right to suicide" and societal acceptance of "physician-assisted suicide." Suicide proponents evoke the image of someone facing unendurable suffering who calmly and rationally decides death is better than life in such a state. They argue that society should respect and defer to the freedom of choice such people exercise in asking to be killed. This essay intends to debunk this point of view on the basis of mental illness among those patients involved.
What would be the consequences of accepting this perspective? Let us examine the facts. Accepting a "right to suicide" would create a legal presumption of sanity, preventing appropriate mental health treatment. If suicide and physician-assisted suicide become legal rights, the presumption that people attempting suicide are deranged and in need of psychological help, borne out by many studies and years of experience, would be reversed. Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone (Sullivan) to do something irremediable, based on a distorted assessment of their circumstances, without genuine help.
An attempt at suicide, some psychologists say, is often a challenge to see if anyone out there really cares(Stengel). Indeed, seeking physician assistance in a suicide, rather than just acting to kill oneself, may well be a manifestation, however subconscious, of precisely that challenge. If society creates a "right to suicide" and legalizes "physician-assisted suicide," the message perceived by a suicide attempter is not likely to be, "We respect your wishes," but rather...
... middle of paper ...
...TRY 455 (1973).
Neuringer, Dichotomous Evaluations in Suicidal Individuals, 25 J. OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY 445, 445 (1961).
- - -, supra note 12; A. Alvarez, THE SAVAGE GOD 199 (1972) cites the case of the suicide of 17th century poet Thomas Chatterton as an example, according to some critics, of an individual possibly overrating his talent and possessing unrealistically high expectations for immediate success.
Rosen, The Serious Suicide Attempt: Five Year Follow Up Study of 886 Patients, 235 J.A.M.A. 2105, 2105 (1976).
Rubinstein, Meses & Lidz, On Attempted Suicide, 79 A.M.A. ARCHIVES NEUROLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY 103, 111 (1958).
Sullivan,A. Voluntary Active Euthanasia for the Terminally Ill and the Constitutional Right to Privacy, 69 CORNELL L. REV. 363 (1984).
Stengel, SUICIDE AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE 113 (1964).
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
Born on the 27th of October, 1940, to a blue collar family in the South Bronx, John Gotti was the fifth of 13 children born to Fannie and J. Joseph Gotti. The family’s income was less than consistent because of John’s father’s unpredictable work as a day laborer. After moving constantly, the family finally settled in East New York: an area notorious for its youth gang activity (“John Joseph Gotti Jr”, 2014). During his teenage years, Gotti became affiliated with the Gambino family, one of the “Five Families” that control most organized crime in New York (Jenkins). He started out as an errand boy for an underground club, where he met Aniello Dellacroce, who would eventually become his men...
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Upon the summation of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates, Thrasymachus enters into the fray. He states that justice “is nothing other than advantage of the stronger” (Republic 338c), and also that the greatest life is that of perfect injustice, to be found in the life of a tyrant. This definition leaves no room for the common good because it creates a life of compet...
“If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.” This thought-provoking quote by Joni Eareckson Tada conveys a sense of obligation held by society to take up the roles of caretakers for the ones that cannot aid their own health. In the relativity of physician-assisted suicide, the word “care” in the previous statement is defined by helping those in need, in this case, pertaining to health issues with a potentially terminal outcome. When analyzing this controversial subject, one must consider all aspects of the medical context as well as the ethical conviction that pairs with it. Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers.
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.
The first reason to allow the legalization of assisted suicide is the autonomy of people. According to Ronald Dworkin (cited in Safranek 1998) right to autonomy is "a right to make important decisions defining their own lives for themselves." Therefore, right-to-die is associated with the right of people to make decisions about their own life. The controversy about this right is that might the patient is not in the right mental state to make choices properly. However, allowing doctors to assist a suicide provides necessary supervision of the process and to guarantee that the patient is in the right psychological state to make such decisions and also doctor can ensure that patient is aware of all the consequences that this implies. Price, A, McCormack, R, Wise...
Currently, physician-assisted suicide or death is illegal in all states except Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Washington. Present law in other states express that suicide is not a crime, but assisting in suicide is. Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that the moral right to life should encompass the right to voluntary death. Opponents of assisted suicide claim that society has a moral and civic duty to preserve the lives of innocent persons. There is a slippery slope involving the legalizing assisted suicide. Concern that assisted suicide allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, can and will lead to the urging of the death for morally unjustifiable reasons is understandable. However, legalization can serve to prevent the already existent practice of underground physician-assisted suicide if strict laws to ensure that the interests of the patients are primary are installed and enforced. When a patient asks for assistance in dying, their wishes should be respected as long as the patient is free from coercion and competent enough to give informed consent. The intent of this work is to examine the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands and to argue that assisted suicide is morally and ethically acceptable in theory despite some unintended consequences of its implementation.
Lesser, H. (2010). Should it be legal to assist suicide?. Journal Of Evaluation In Clinical
As one can see, physician-assisted suicide has a long and complicated history. Recent developments in the United States have brought the issues associated with end-of-life decisions under the microscope. The morality and ethics associated with voluntarily assisting someone while committing suicide have struck a chord with individuals, organizations, and in the political and medicinal sectors. The Hippocratic Oath and Pharmaceutical Oath have become subject to scrutiny with the gaining popularity and legalization of terminally ill patients seeking dignity in death. Increasingly, people are supporting the tough decisions made by patients.
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.
Michaelson, Peter. “A Hidden Reason for Suicidal Thoughts”(2013). Why We Suffer. n.pag. Web. 2 Apr. 2014
Uvalic, M. (2002, July). Regional Cooperation and the Enlargement of the European Union: Lessons Learned? International Political Science Review, 23(3), 319-333.
'And each makes laws to its own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws, and so on with the others. And they declare what they have made - what is to their own advantage - to be just for their subjects, and they punish anyone who goes against this as lawless and unjust. This, then, is what I say justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of the established rule. Since the established rule is surely stronger, anyone who reasons correctly will conclude that the just is the same everywhere, namely, the advantage of the stronger.'" Plato, Republic, Book 1, 338
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.