Dr. Timothy Quill and three other terminally ill patients filed a case against the Attorney General of New York State claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clauses. The New York State law allowed discontinuation of life-saving treatment for a competent person who was terminally ill, however, it imposed a ban on physician assisted suicide. The district court did not agree but the Court of Appeals reversed stating that they were moreover similar things and the ban was an unequal treatment. The Supreme Court granted a certiorari. Issue: There is a clear distinction between refusing a life-saving treatment and physician assisted suicide, does the terminally ill patients vies this distinction as an operating violation of Equal Protection Clause?
n this paper, I will argue that Dr. Ewing Cook’s actions were morally impermissible by showing that most of the reasons he used to justify his actions of hastening the death of Jannie Burgess are what we called the “slippery slope arguments”. First, I will provide a little context of what Dr. Cook had done to patient Jannie Burgess and the reasons he used to justify his actions. Next, I will defend my thesis by presenting some arguments against Dr. Cook’s reasons and actions, which will lead me to conclude that Dr. cook’s action were morally impermissible. Last but not least, I will address some possible objections to my position. First, let’s take a look at what had Dr. Cook done to patient Jannie Burgess and the arguments he used to justify
Gill argues that keeping a person healthy cannot be a physician’s only moral duty because in cases of terminal ill patients, they can no longer be treated or healed (372). If a physician’s only duty were to heal patients then they would not tend to the terminally ill because there would be nothing else that they could do, which is something that most people would find to be morally wrong (Gill, 373). No one would be okay with a doctor not helping a person at all who has received a terminal sentence. So instead of promoting health in this case, the physicians must find a way to reduce the suffering of the patient. This means that the physician should be able to reduce the suffering in the way that the patient asks for.
The oath of Hippocrates binds the physician to a promise “to do no harm.” However, the oath poses a dilemma for the physician to either participate in or decline PAS. A physician’s perception of the dilemma indicates his belief in PAS. For example, Kitty Rayl of Oregon, with terminal uterine cancer, turned to Dr. Nancy Crumpacker for help in dying. Under Oregon Law, Dr. Crumpacker could assist Kitty’s death with a lethal medication.
Physician assisted suicide is currently legal in five U.S. states with fifteen more states reviewing it within the next year making it an important topic to look at morally and ethically. Physician assisted suicide is the act of an individual killing themselves with the help of a physician, usually by taking a lethal dose of a drug. It is important to point out that the patient first has to request it and they complete the ultimate act. This differs from euthanasia where the physician is the one who ultimately causes the death. Physician assisted suicide is requested because the patient is enduring tremendous pain and suffering which can only be ended with their death (Vaughn 293).
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience.
Rachel poses an argument against the conventional doctrine claiming that many cases where a patient is left to die are in fact worse than actually killing them. Because if the person is going to die in either case then why would it be morally permissible to let them slowly die? Either way, the patient is dead. Yet the conventional doctrine usually adds a requirement of suffering before dying. Rachel uses the example of the refusal of treatment to defective new-borns - and the subsequent death of the infant because of dehydration- in order to further prove that certain cases of letting die are actually worse than
The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.
Assisted suicide is a tough decision that comes down to what you morally believe in. The author of the article “The right to die” believes that doctor assisted suicide should be legalized in more states than just the four that it is. He approaches the topic from an ethical standpoint, stating its rights and wrongs. This essay will include reasons as to why assisted suicide should be legalized, how the system of death should work and if it is morally right. Only in four states is assisted suicide mandated by state law: Oregon, Washington, Vermont and California.
Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights.
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.
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.
Euthanasia, meaning ‘gentle, easy death’, is known as the act of ending somebody’s life painlessly in order to relieve suffering. This is a common topic for debate, with many arguments about whether it is morally wrong to end somebody’s life in the circumstances of extreme illness. People such as Joseph Fletcher, founder of Situation Ethics, may suggest that euthanasia may be the most loving thing in certain situations, and is therefore morally right. However, other people, such as Aquinas, founder of Natural Moral Law, would disagree, stating that it goes against the precept of preserving life, and is therefore morally wrong, no matter the situation. Although there are some situations in which euthanasia could be exploited, my thesis will argue that it is not always morally wrong to end someone’s life in the circumstances in which euthanasia would be contemplated.