Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong

Life is a story full of chapters where we experience trials and tribulations in so many ways. As we may already be aware of, humans do not live forever. Life comes to an ending that is inevitable. Death is a difficult part of life to grasp. Furthermore, people have no control of how the end of life will take place. Some suffer more than others, people experience death differently due to different causes of death. Moreover, in health care, physicians experience difficult situations that require ethical decisions. Patients at the end of life process do not always have the capability to make decisions for themselves. The burden to make medical decisions is left to families and physician’s. Some cases are so intense, because patients voluntarily request assisted suicide. More specifically, physician assisted suicide with the means to end his or her life causing death. Physician assisted suicide raises arguments, of what is morally right or wrong. Although physician assisted suicide raises concerns, both

Most people would never contemplate whether or not to end their family pet’s suffering, so why can’t people be as sympathetic to their family and friends? In today’s society, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is one of the most debatable topics. The debates on physician-assisted suicide go back and forth between whether or not patients, specifically terminally ill patients, should have the right to die with the aid of doctors. Opponents believe physician-assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong for patients to end their lives, and they believe it violates basic medical standards. However, proponents of physician-assisted suicide believe it is a humane and safe way for terminally ill patients to resolve their agony. After researching both sides of the argument, it is clear that the benefits of physician-assisted suicide outweigh the disadvantages. The benefits of ending a patient’s pain and suffering, minimizing the emotional and financial effects on families, and preserving the right for patients to decide their own fate, supports the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

iii) Euthanasia contains a much smaller chance for mistakes and may be necessary in cases where a patient is too sick for self-administration.

“The real reason for not committing suicide is because you always know how well life gets again after the hell is over.” People are unable to realize how their situation can be resolved better than having to kill themselves. Terminally ill patients are notorious for taking their lives before they can realize the mistake they are making. They believe that it is best for their situation, however, there are multiple reasons for why they should reconsider their actions before something terrible happens. Doctor assisted suicides should not be allowed because of the effects it has on the deceased loved ones and how more terminally ill patients are overcoming their disabilities.

This legislation has faced criticism from persons that warn of abuse, loss of integrity to the profession of medicine, and a lack of respect for the sanctity of life (Starks PhD). Supporters point out that the act of physician assisted suicide is one that happens far more than the general public cares to think about; legislation decriminalizing this act allows the opportunity for transparency ensuring safety checks along the process, autonomy and compassion for the patient, as well as help for mentally ill persons seeking physician assisted suicide (Starks

For several years, physicians and patients have argued that a legal form of suicide should be legalized. Many of the patients who support this idea are in critical condition and for many of the physicians, this is their last resort. While some support this idea, others argue that this is not a logical stance to take. The concept that has swept and divided the nation is perceived as “Assisted Suicide”. The intent of Assisted Suicide is to eliminate the pain and suffering of a patient by in a sense being able to “Die with Dignity.” (Endlink3) However, this idea violates the morals of others, sends a negative message to individuals who are struggling,and terminates the possibility of the situation

Secondly, doctor assisted suicides might give too much power into doctors’ hand. Their approach to a patient’s condition could determine the outcome of an illness. They may find it easier to agree on assisted suicide than finding a solution to the problem. According to the oath they are all obliged to take, they have the strongest part in defending human life. Thus, assisting to somebody’s death is out of their authority.

The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide is equal parts emotional and debatable. People fight over whether it is ethically acceptable for a dying person who has chosen to avoid the unimaginable suffering at the end of their precious life. Additionally, it is also the physician’s duty to ease the patient 's suffering, which may justify providing aid-in-dying depending on the case. This becomes a huge issue not on ethically but politically for the doctors because studies have shown that the doctors are often divided on if they feel that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. If it does in fact become legalized it will force hundreds of thousands of doctors to help kill someone when they take the hippocratic oath to help someone

“A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.” -Andrew Coyne. According to Cambridge dictionary, euthanasia, also called assisted suicide, is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Although many think assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada to avoid violation of Freedom of Choice Act, I strongly disagree with its legalization. Permitting euthanasia prevents advancements in care facilities for the terminally-ill, leads to non-voluntary use of euthanasia and diminishes society’s respect for life.

Something that western society has always put an emphasis on autonomy of the individual. The purpose of physician assisted suicide being legalized is to put an emphasis on the individual and their wishes. Immanuel Kant believed that humans were born with a natural instinct of right and wrong. According to Kant, the act of suicide to escape a difficult situation will be ruled immoral (Friend, 2011). The end would defy self-love and self-preservation so Kant permits no exceptions because the act of killing will never become a universal law of nature (Friend, 2011). However, Kant believes that autonomy is the soul core of human dignity (Kant, 1785). Killing people typically violates a person’s autonomy, but not upholding their

Utilitarianism, Kantian/deontological, and virtue ethics are some of the moral theories that have been touched upon in class. These theories apply to our everyday life and in many ways make their way into the medical field and our everyday life. There are positive and negatives for each of these theories and all have their own take on biomedical ethical issues. In the article “Autonomy Trumps All? A Kantian Critique of Physician-Assisted Death” by Hoa Trung Dinh, the article explores the views and thoughts of physician-assisted deaths and if they are morally ethical. Autonomy plays a major role in biomedical ethics and is described as “making own decisions for yourself, not others, without inappropriate influence” therefore the autonomy of physician-assisted deaths would come in to play when the patient is deciding

California’s recent passing of making assisted suicide legal, has made it the sixth state that now allows patients with a terminal illness to determine whether they want to end their lives and prevent their gratuitous suffering. Proponents of this law state that, if a patients illness is terminal and the patient is suffering, then it is immoral to essentially force these patient into financial debt and a journey to states that already have assisted suicide legalized. Advocates further argue using Modus Ponens structure of, if p then q. Supporters state that as a society, we have a moral obligation to stop gratuitous suffering, and in turn we have a moral obligation to legalize assisted suicide.

In today’s healthcare, there is an abundance of ethical issues that nobody is entirely certain how to deal with. To enumerate, every person has a different opinion on each medical issue. As a result, there is a substantial amount of confusion on how the supreme court should rule on each ethical dilemma. Yet, our heavenly Father has only one standing on each ethical issue. As a matter of fact, God has placed his rulings on these issues in His word, the

Authors Len Doyal and Lesley Doyal have written the article ¨Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Should be Legalized¨ in the British Medical Journal, and they discuss legalizing assisted suicide. The author mentions Diane Pretty as an example of a terminally ill patient that wants to decide now to end her life. She was was not given the consent to do so. Many people are going down the same road as Mrs. Pretty. Ones who know that the value of their life will soon be nonexistent and filled with pain and suffering. When it is acceptable to have a doctor pull a treatment keeping up a life, a person should be able to pull their own. In this case, a person can still be looking at passive euthanasia,

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.