Within the past decade, Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) has become a controversial topic within the medical field. However, many people are not entirely aware of the terminology regarding PAS (3). PAS is when a physician provides the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform a life-ending act (AMA). In regards to physician assisted suicide there are many positive and negative arguments that can help us decide for ourselves on how we feel about PAS.
In this essay, I will argue that the distinction between a physician killing a patient, and letting a patient die, upon the untreatable patients request, regarding to physician assisted suicide is not an important distinction to make regarding morality; however, it is important in regards to how a physician killing a patient and letting a patient die is justified. I will argue this by first making a distinction, regarding to the moral justifications for physician assisted suicide, between a physician killing an untreatable patient and letting an untreatable patient die, and then argue that even though both are morally permissible, the distinction between letting die and killing is a very important distinction to make. When I am stating letting die as defined by Tom L. Beauchamp, I am referring to a person, in
"Society Favors the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide." Physician-Assisted Suicide. Ed. Gail N. Hawkins. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. At Issue. Rpt. from "Death with Dignity: Choices and Challenges." USA Today Mar. 2000. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
Threatening to diminish the value of life is very dangerous. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, is the practice of doctors intentionally ending a terminally ill patient’s life in what is purportedly a gentle and dignified manner. The term originated in ancient Greek and means “easy death.” Doctors perform euthanasia by administering lethal drugs or by withholding treatment that would prolong the patient’s life. Physician-assisted suicide is also a form of euthanasia, but the difference between the two methods is that in euthanasia, doctors end the patient’s life with lethal injections, whereas, in physician-assisted suicide, patients kill themselves with a lethal amount of drugs prescribed by the doctors. Physicians practiced euthanasia
The argument that I am analyzing is found in Philippa Foot’s article Euthanasia. This specific section starts at the beginning on page 88. This argument starts once she talks about the true meaning of Euthanasia and the difficulty in how people see or perceive it. In Foot 's article, she wants to prove that an act of euthanasia is morally permissible, as long as you’re performing it for the right cause or reasons. Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die." (Foot, p.100) She further justifies this argument by stating that as long as we put into consideration the interests of the person involved and only the benefits of that person that euthanasia can morally acknowledge. I believe that it
iii) Euthanasia contains a much smaller chance for mistakes and may be necessary in cases where a patient is too sick for self-administration.
Euthanasia is the termination of terminally ill person’s life in order to relieve them from suffering. A person who undergoes Euthanasia usually has a terrible condition. Mostly it is carried out at patient’s request but sometimes they might be terribly ill and decision is made by family members, medics or courts. This issue is at the centre of debates for years and is surrounded
339). Specifically, Rachels disagrees with the argument that “active” and “passive euthanasia” are dissimilar because, in “passive euthanasia,” the medical practitioner is not completing an activity (Timmons, 2016, p. 339). The medical practitioner does complete an activity, he or she permits the person in his care to pass away (Timmons, 2016). The morality of the doctor can be questioned the same way, particularly if the individual in his or her care had a disease that could easily be treated (Timmons, 2016). In either case, the individual could face judgment for his actions, even in judicial proceedings (Timmons, 2016). However, Rachels disregards a judicial perspective, focusing on the claim that death is outrageously wicked regardless (Timmons, 2016). Even though death is this way, if someone decides euthanasia is the better option than death, then the situation of the individual staying alive is just as nefarious (Timmons, 2016). Thus, the rationality behind refusing to kill anyone is not relevant (Timmons,
The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.
I have argued that even though a physician killing an untreatable patient and a physician letting a patient die upon their request are both morally justifiable, the distinction between the two regarding the morality of physician assisted suicide is important because they are both justified differently. I have presented two counter arguments based on consequentialism, and argued that both of them untrue. A physician killing an untreatable patient upon their request and letting an untreatable patient die upon their request are both justifiable aspects of physician assisted suicide, and therefore it is not an important distinction to make regarding the moral permissibility of physician assisted suicide. However, it is an important
We live in a world that has opposing viewpoints on this subject; there are those who view it as homicide, and others who view it as the most sincere form of human compassion. So I implore you, not to look at euthanasia as a choice between life and death, but a choice between peace and misery. Dying is not a
Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is the act of permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured patients. This is never suggested by the caretaker rather than requested by the patient or their family. Few areas such as the Netherlands have already legalized this practice. This debate, as split as a fork in the road, is over whether or not this approach should be legalized worldwide on stances regarding religion, ethics, and self choice.
Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.
Many pro-euthanasia believers will use the autonomy argument and debate the opinion that patients should have the right to choose when and how to they want to die. In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this topic by stating “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death… (De La Torre).” However, dignity cannot be measured by the level of pain or the speed in which the individual dies, because it is already a characteristic of a person’s worth as a human being (Middleton). Allowing a patient to live their life to the fullest until the very end is surely a more humane and dignified death then cutting that life short in fear of what it is coming through the practice of euthanasia. While death for these patients can be a sad ending, it does not have to condemn a person to a remaining life of sadness and negativity. In an article for Verily Magazine, Sophie Caldecott described her terminally ill father’s painful yet beautiful last years of
Have you ever imagined one of your loved ones suffering from a painful illness? Have you ever wanted that person to die and rest in peace? This is called Euthanasia, which means the termination of a patient’s life who is suffering from excruciating pain and a terminal disease. Euthanasia came from the Greek for good (“eu”) and death (“thanatos”) “good death”(Sklansky, (2001) p.5.) There are more than four types of euthanasia such as active euthanasia, which means that death is caused directly by another person by giving the patient a poisonous injection. Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of treatment that keeps the patient alive. Voluntary euthanasia means that the patient requests assisted suicide, while involuntary euthanasia means that it is done against the patient’s will. Euthanasia started in both the Roman Empire and Greece. In ancient Rome, euthanasia was considered a crime and was taken as murder. In general, Greece accepted euthanasia for patients who are suffering from extreme pain. Plato wrote “Mentally and physically ill persons should be left to death, they do not have the right to live”(A General History of Euthanasia, (n.d.) p.1 ) Sir Thomas More was the first prominent Christian to mention euthanasia in his book Utopia. Then, in the 18th century, Prussia passed a law that reduced the punishment of a person who killed a patient with an incurable disease. In the 20th century, euthanasia became a heated topic among numerous individuals, who