Physician Assisted Suicide Argumentative Analysis

1714 Words7 Pages

During the ancient Greek and Roman times’ way before Christianity emerged Euthanasia was not even a matter of concern or issue because human life was not valued as it is today. Many abortions and mercy killing were done and even thought the Hippocratic Oath prohibited physicians from giving a lethal drug to patients or any persons if asked for or not only a few followed the oath. At the time many people advocated for it and physicians acted on it as well, and now people of the 21st century continue to ask for it although the doctors are not as ignorant on the issue as before. According to Medical News Today euthanasia, has an arguable definition of whether it is a death/suicide in a painless manner, however the ignore the fact that they are …show more content…

David Benatar, a professor in the Philosophy Department at the University of Cape Town in South Africa discusses the 2 arguments that those who would deny a patient the legal right to euthanasia or Physician assisted suicide (PAS) as an advocate for it. The two arguments are the “slippery slope” argument and the dangers of abuse argument. Dr. Benatar’s viewpoint would allow us to see a defenders viewpoint from an aspect that does not discuss why euthanasia or (PAS) should be allowed from a non-traditional viewpoint of individual rights. In the article “A legal right to die: responding to slippery slope and abuse arguments” gives a brief understanding of the two arguments with reasoning to back up such claims. As for the first argument, he states that a slippery slope is basically your argument based on the moral and ethical aspect of things with a claim of that if a specific action such as euthanasia were permitted it would be irrevocably led to allowing various doings that are considered morally wrong. He then talks about how in the Netherlands the law initially said the terminally ill could request euthanasia or PAS but now it is open to the chronically ill those who are suffering from psychological issues, those who are unable to perform the basic required function of everyday living, as well as children. The second arguments states that once given the right, it will be abused and that no legal protection can stop it from being abused. Although it has been proved …show more content…

According to “ killing the pain not the patients: palliative care vs. assisted suicide” both Dr. Doerflinger and Gomez discuss what the pain control substance does and the difference between the two. The misconception of morphine side effect of causing death to patients is wrong to an extent, it is said that those who use it and are healthy and are not going through any kind of pain will probably die from it however those who are dealing with severe pain will have a less likely chance of dying because the drug will hit the pain receptors also once the patients continuously uses the drug eventfully the patient will build up tolerance so that the side affect will not effect him/her. Many do say that eventually the patients do die from this treatment, so it can be considered the same thing. However the main problem with this particular form of care is that it is not readily available for those who want it. As Gomez and Doerflinger discuss this topic it is obvious that they want the best for everyone in such a way that it will benefit both views to that of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide with the intention to relieve pain and not kill

Open Document