In his essay "Is There a Duty to Die?" philosopher John Hardwig argues that in certain circumstances, individuals have a duty to die for the benefit of others. Specifically, he argues that in cases where a person's continued existence places significant burdens on their loved ones, they should consider euthanasia as a means of fulfilling this duty. However, I believe that this argument is deeply flawed and that there is no moral duty to die. One of the key problems with Hardwig's argument is that it places an undue burden on individuals to sacrifice their own lives for the benefit of others. While it is certainly true that caring for a terminally ill loved one can be difficult and emotionally taxing, it is not fair to expect that person to …show more content…
It implies that certain individuals have more value than others, and that some people's lives are expendable in order to benefit others. This devalues human life and undermines the fundamental principle that every individual has inherent worth and dignity. Hardwig's argument implies that a person's worth is contingent upon their ability to be a burden or not, which is a deeply disturbing view. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where the duty to die would not be exploitable. Who gets to decide whether a person's continued existence constitutes a burden on their loved ones? Is it the family members themselves, or should an external authority be responsible for making this determination? The potential for abuse and coercion is significant, as some family members may feel pressure to convince their loved ones to end their lives in order to avoid the financial and emotional burden of caring for them. Finally, Hardwig's argument overlooks the fact that euthanasia is a complex and deeply controversial issue. There are many ethical and practical concerns that must be taken into account when considering whether to end a person's life, including questions of autonomy, dignity, and pain management. Simply asserting that some individuals have a duty to die is not enough to address these complex issues, and it fails to take into account the potential for unintended
John Hardwig is a professor at East Tennessee State University teaching philosophy and medical ethics. The thesis of his article is “I feel strongly that I may very well someday have a duty to die.” He makes the case that many older people and young people say that they do not want to be a burden to their family once their illness comes to full-time care. Then they decide to euthanize themselves. He gives many examples of how full- time care can be a positive thing.
Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia said choosing a pain-free death is a 'demonstration of love and compassion' in its submission to a Victorian parliamentary inquiry. The group argues voluntary euthanasia for people who are terminally ill would increase their quality of life by removing the stress of facing a painful death. "It's not a choice between life and death. It's a choice between different ways of dying." (Preiss).
The Euthanasia Debate There is nothing more sacred than life and there is nothing more natural in life to wish to cling on to it for those you love! And nothing more cruel than to play God by artificially holding onto that which God wants to bring home. – Author Unknown. The topic of euthanasia is uncomfortable as it forces us to confront our own fears of dying. Society looks towards our legal system to help make decisions regarding euthanasia.
Euthanasia, a sensitive topic for most; some are for it, some are against it. The issue that is presented in James Rachel’s “Active and Passive Euthanasia” is an attempt to determine if assisted death is morally acceptable or flat out immoral. This controversial topic is a subject that comes up frequently in the medical field. Should one be able to self inflict death? Some say it is morally wrong while others believe otherwise.
It can be stretched as far as, the patient’s right to life is held at a lower value than the interests of others. Hardwig’s argument unleashes many controversial acts that could take place if a “duty to die” is morally permissible. This would include, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, abuse (at the hands of care givers and/or family members). Having a duty to die cannot be morally permissible in the case of someone born with a disability. They cannot care for themselves; it can sometimes be a strain on their families financially as well.
Therefore, supporting euthanasia is a stab in the back of our principle of doing no harm. My position is that reacting to a person’s pain by silencing their cries shows a lack of compassion or empathy or love for the human race (Polysyndeton). The fact, ladies and gentlemen, is that the request for euthanasia is mostly to relieve psychological suffering, as the physical pain can be minimized using medicine and palliative care. Minimizing psychological suffering can be done either by portraying the right attitude towards the patient or helping them come to term with their condition. Some might say doctors give drugs to patients to relieve pain and the patients eventually die.
"The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty," (Pros 1). Throughout John Steinbeck's novel, "Of Mice and Men" George, a short farm laborer, must protect and teach Lennie, a tall but autistic farm laborer. George's responsibilities over Lennie creates a family-like bond. However when Lennie puts himself in serious danger, George is faced with the task of killing Lennie. On procon.org there is an article titled, "Is There a Legal Right to Die" which provides the reader with a list of pros and cons for euthanasia.
Daniel Callahan criticizes those who support euthanasia for giving up certain patients from the point of view of resource allocation, making limited social resources more efficiently, and turning right to die into death. Duty to a group of people who are deemed not worth living to make or label. (-- removed HTML --) >, Zeng
There is nothing more dreadful than to see a love one suffer, but what is more torturous is to decide to either let go or keep that love one confined in bed and connected to tubes. Euthanasia allows the family members to make the first option considering that this is a decision that has the best interest for the patient involved. By deciding to euthanize, the family is “able to choose when and how [the patient] want[s] to die, and that [the patient] should do so with dignity” (Euthanasia and assisted suicide). Because patients often feel like a burden, euthanasia puts them at ease. When a patient is in a comatose state,“euthanasia is much more dignified than dying
This means the primary duty of a physician is preserve life at all cost for which he/she has taken an oath. The other issue is that the time of decision when one decide to end the life it may be a premature decision and such patients are not given adequate palliative care prior to the euthanasia. In the Netherlands, physicians report that in 9 percent of euthanasia cases in nursing homes not all palliative measures were utilized prior to ending the patient's life. Even around 60 percent were not receiving hospice care (Emanuel, 1999).
The topic of euthanasia has many complicated elements and moral perspectives surrounding it. By definition,
“Dying is not a crime” –Jack Kevorkian. Euthanasia, from the Greek word meaning “good death” is the practice of assisted suicide with the intention of relieving pain and suffering (Anderson). Euthanasia is a hot topic that people have various judgments on. I choose to be an advocate for euthanasia for the reason that it is a case of respecting humanity and giving the person the right to choose when and how to die which is a normal right for everyone to have. People opposing euthanasia claim that it is an immoral act because life must be preserved and protected, but in fact, euthanasia should be legal everywhere because euthanasia does not shorten lifespan of patients, it frees up medical funds to help other people get that medical
One of the most pressing areas of contemporary bioethics research, the practice of euthanasia, is rushing to the forefront of current issue debates today. Euthanasia, a word derived from the Greek meaning “good” or “easy” and the Greek word for “death,” refers to the practice of a person killing another due to that individual being terminally ill, disable, elderly, or suffering in some capacity. It is the intentional killing, by act or omission, of another in a seemingly humane way, free from pain, and is therefore often referred to as a “mercy killing.” As this debate surges into courts across the world as more foreign countries and states legalize euthanasia, two worldviews emerge concerning this act’s morality. The first is comprised
One is unable to end his / her life even if one strongly wishes to die, giving rise to the need to assist one to die; Opponents of euthanasia on the other hand have advanced the following arguments against the practice: i. People should not be restricted to the choice of voluntary euthanasia when modern medicine provides improved care and treatment which is capable of alleviating pain and suffering; ii. It is difficult to ascertain the competence and ‘voluntary’ nature of a dying person’s wish to die due to several factors. Temporary despair and the inability to think rationally due to severe pain and suffering have been cited as some of the factors; iii. The doctrine of double effect holds that acting in ways which can have life-shortening and fatal consequences may be permissible on condition that there is no active intent to cause death. iv.
The problem that is faced with euthanasia is trying to please the opinions of all people – which is almost impossible. Many people believe that euthanasia is murder, but then many believe it is torture if someone is denied that option. Those in favour of legalizing euthanasia argue that all people should be allowed to choose what happens to their body, and that it is inhumane to force someone to continue their lives in unbearable pain and suffering. It can also be argued that as suicide is not a punishable crime, euthanasia should also be legal (BBC, 2014). Those in favour of euthanasia remaining illegal claim that euthanasia is the same thing as murder and should be punished accordingly, and that if the law was made legal it may be abused and wrongly performed (BBC, 2014).