The government is saying that physicians are role models and should be viewed as people who save lives, not people who take life away. Opponents contend that physician-assisted suicide undermines doctors’ roles in society. According to American Medical Association, “Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good” (Fuller). The community looks up to doctors, especially the sickly elders. They might be influenced to seek help in easing their suffering.
These personal decisions should not be left to governments. End of life decisions belong inside families. (Meier, 2005) Allowing the government to disregard a family’s wish violates their values or beliefs. ("NYCLU Urges Legislature to Let Families Make Medical Decisions for Incapacitated Patients", 2006) These matters should belong to god and family, not the government. (Crist, 2006) Legalizing euthanasia undermines the quality of palliative care.
Suppose the patient and doctor decide not to treat the illness and let nature take its course in killing them. This is very common and patients decide not to receive treatment even though they know it will eventually kill them. The next argument is, what would be wrong with allowing euthanasia as a fast and painless death verses a slow deterioration if the ending result of them both is ultimately death. Singer claims, “If there is no intrinsic moral difference between killing and allowing to die, active euthanasia should also be accepted as humane and proper in certain circumstances” (Singer 2011,
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
Introduction Dr. Gress’s view that the results of a genetic test should be withheld from patients if they are positive is paternalistic, immoral, and does not consider the autonomy of the individual. He holds the position that notifying patients of their genetic status is too harmful and that it is a doctor’s duty to withhold information that could be devastating; however, in doing so, he violates many ethical principles that doctors should exercise. This paper will give an overview on the topic of genetic testing and the ethical and moral problems associated with it, an analysis rejecting Dr. Gress’s view, and a response to an objection to the thesis of which this paper is based on. Presentation of Topic Medical professionals have been
Although “some people think that euthanasia shouldn’t be allowed…because it could be abused and used as a cover for murder” (BBC- ethics-euthanasia: Ethics…, 2014), the Hippocratic Oath obliges the doctors to preserve life and uphold specific standards. According to the article written by Gorman, the constant demand for euthanasia by many patients, states in America, such as California, Oregon, and a few other states, have proposed bills and passed laws that allows doctors to assist in euthanizing and be protected from any lawsuits that declares the action to be a misuse of authority and privileges. It has also been debated over that it is not giving the patient the right to die but instead allowing the third party the right to kill. In a biblical perspective, some may also consider it as unethical and sinful because “all life is sacred and it should be kept at all cost” (Argument for euthanasia, 2013). Therefore, many disapprove since it goes against the religious belief of a natural death.
C. Ben Mitchell, a professor of Moral Philosopher at the Union University, in his article, “On Human Bioenhancements” (200), argues against the use of human enhancement which has emerge questioning about, the principles of justice, and cultural complicity. Mitchell supports his argument by describing how this method is an unethical behavior by the medical community and how this new technology should not be implement anywhere in the future. His purpose is to persuade his readers not to support this new method which will have a negative effect within our society, and instead of helping our future generation it will destroy our human nature. The author’s audience likely consists of professors, college professors, parents, with some understanding
Proponents of euthanasia believe that it will do not degrades life for those who are suffering from incurable illness. They should have a choice whether they want to end their live. But in fact, not all of the patient receive euthanasia because of the suffering but other reason reasons like the medical cost and other monetary reasons. A report had discussed that the rising cost of medical care for the elderly had cause some euthanasia become one of the suggestion to solve this crisis. ( report, EPAC, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council).
The decision to or not to donate is a moral decision. There can be no right or wrong answering this. There is a policy known as the Dead donor rule that raises a lot of ethical questions. Medical professionals must weight the value of saving a life with the individual rights with their body. However, with this rule the person must be declared dead before a doctor can harvest the organs.