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). Throughout this paper I will argue that physician assisted …show more content…
Rachels looks at the utilitarian argument which states that if an action increases happiness or decreases unhappiness it is morally acceptable, therefore killing a suffering patients, who requests to die, decreases their unhappiness and can be morally acceptable However, Rachels doesn’t see this argument as sound because happiness and unhappiness are not the only things to consider morally. To argue this Rachels uses the example that limiting religion may increase happiness, but that doesn’t make is morally acceptable because it denies people the ability to make their own decisions. Rachel then goes to create his argument, which uses both a mercy and utilitarian approach. The mercy argument justifies euthanasia when it puts an end to a patient’s agony and suffering. Rachels uses an example of a twenty eight year old man named Jack who suffers from terminal cancer. Jack’s pain can only be alleviated for an hour or two at a time and between doses he howls in pain. Another patient notes that if Jack were a dog his suffering would be ended by putting him to sleep, therefore the mercy argument can be used to argue in favor of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. Rachels uses the mercy argument and the utilitarian argument to create his argument which he believe is sounder. He states if an action is in everyone’s best interest and violates no ones rights then it …show more content…
I strongly agree with Aras look on the autonomy argument and that individuals should be able to determine the level of suffering for which they can endure and when the point comes to end ones life. Suffering is a complex thing that cannot be measured or determined by anyone but the individual himself or herself. Therefor I do not think that anyone is in a place to say that an individual should prolong their suffering when in the case of terminally ill patients will ultimately end in death. In terms of the utilitarian argument I agree that one needs to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness, but find issues with it similar to Rachels that will be discussed later. Where I disagree with Aras is in his analysis of the slippery slope argument and potential for abuse. I feel with the necessary safe guards put into place the slippery slope argument and abuse will be negligible. I do not agree that the arguments made for physician-assisted suicide can be made in any other case but terminally ill patients. For terminally ill patients the end result is going to be death whether it is in a few days, weeks, or months. With other illnesses, while life may be depreciated, death is not looming in the near future. The unnecessary suffering caused to terminally ill patients, isn’t going to go
The opposing side claim euthanasia is wrong and rather than mercy kill, take pain relievers and go to doctors. The opposing side is incorrect and euthanasia should be a legal option for a hospital patient to decide not the government. Taking medicine every day to relieve pain would be terrible due the fact that the person has to take the medicine multiple times a day and too much medicine can actually cause more health problems euthanasia is a great option and be a decision for the patient Goodman states in his article “We all have better chance of dying slowly while connected to half dozen tubes in the hospital ICU” (Goodman). Euthanasia prevents suffering something medical help can't completely stop also medical help stretches out the pain so you can live longer but it comes with so much pain and
Conclusion I have argued that even though a physician killing an untreatable patient and a physician letting a patient die upon their request are both morally justifiable, the distinction between the two regarding the morality of physician assisted suicide is important because they are both justified differently. I have presented two counter arguments based on consequentialism, and argued that both of them untrue. A physician killing an untreatable patient upon their request and letting an untreatable patient die upon their request are both justifiable aspects of physician assisted suicide, and therefore it is not an important distinction to make regarding the moral permissibility of physician assisted suicide. However, it is an important
I think arguments opposing it are the most compelling. Physician-assisted suicide would violate human dignity, viewing disabled family members as burdens would increase, and it would corrupt the profession of medicine by permitting something that is supposed to be used for healing to be used for killing. Death assisted with medication from a doctor and dying alone in a hospital bed is a heartbreaking concept to me. It pains me that patients with terminal illnesses would make the decision to end their life because they are miserable or believe they are a burden to their family. Life is a precious gift we have been given.
I am concerned about physician assisted suicide. I do not believe that suicide is the answer, no matter the situation. I am against assisted suicide because I believe it is unethical to be allowed to choose to die. I think that assisted suicide should not be allowed. I also do not understand how a doctor or nurse could help a patient commit suicide.
The Issue with Physician Assisted Suicide Physician-assisted suicide is the act of a physician prescribing a patient medication that allows the patient to kill themselves. Normally it is only given to patients with terminal illness, but the act of assisted suicide is on the rise for other diseases like depression. It is only legal in 5 states in America. Physician-assisted suicide should be made illegal across all states because it is offensive to social groups, causes doctors’ jobs to become more challenging, and it opposes patient freedom.
In contrast, proponents of physician assisted suicide view this phenomenon in a completely different light. Within this camp PAS is seen as a logical and obvious option for those who are struggling with a severe illness. On the account of it is seen as a human right, and a choice any competent adult should have at their disposal. In a debate on the legalization of PAS, philanthropist Andrew Solomon stated, “Although no one should be pressed into assisted dying, no one should be categorically denied that right. It’s about dignity.”
A physician is “a person who is skilled in the art of healing.” (Dictionary.com) It’s easy to understand why most physicians can’t bring themselves to practice assisted
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.
Although Assisted suicide is illegal in most states, it is well known to help many patients, however opposing sides sees the impact it has on family and medical physicians who think it is unethical. Physician assisted suicide is for those who have life threatning illnesses and who do not have much time to live. However, from a legal standpoint, Physician assisted suicide does not include active
Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is where a physician helps out critical condition patients who want to end their lives. This work is disputable, with people arguing that it provides patients another option to end their suffering. Although people who oppose Physician Assisted Suicide say it shortens human lives, it should be legalized since it helps people end their lives easily and effectively. Opponents of physician-assisted suicide insist it contravenes the Hippocratic Oath, which forbids doctors to damage or permit harm to their patients.
Patients have the right to the kind of treatment they want. 3) Conclusion a) Physician assisted suicide can help treat the terminally ill how they would like to be treated. b) The long history of assisted suicide speaks for itself in the matter of if it should be legal or
Many people think that there are too many problems with physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide is a procedure that allows physicians to prescribe their patients a lethal medication that they can inject themselves with in order to die on their own terms. There are specific requirements that the patients must meet in order to receive this medication. Physician assisted suicide is only for patients that have life threatening illnesses and do not have much time left to live. It is legal in numerous places around the world including certain places in the United States.
The medical field is filled with opportunities and procedures that are used to help improve a patient’s standard of living and allow them to be as comfortable as possible. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a method, if permitted by the government, that can be employed by physicians across the world as a way to ease a patient’s pain and suffering when all else fails. PAS is, “The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.”-Medicinenet.com. This procedure would be the patient’s decision and would allow the patient to end their lives in a more peaceful and comfortable way, rather than suffering until the illness takes over completely. Physician assisted suicide should be permitted by the government because it allows patients to end their suffering and to pass with dignity, save their families and the hospital money, and it allows doctors to preserve vital organs to save
In this case, and many others worldwide, physician assisted suicide is morally permissible at all ages for anyone with a terminal illness with a prognosis of 6 months. This is supported by act based utilitarianism and the idea of maximizing pleasure and reducing pain and suffering on an individual circumstance. By allowing a terminal patient to die a less painful death, in control of the situation, and with dignity, the patient will have amplified
The Utilitarian belief is that every person suffers and when they do suffer they should be able to make the decision to live or to have someone kill them. When no one else is harmed and it is the decision of the person in pain then it is acceptable. If a Utilitarian read the article they would view the euthanasia program as nauseating. A utilitarian is only supporting of euthanasia when it helps end the agony of living anymore as determined or requested by the person in affliction. However, the victims of the euthanasia program had no say in whether they wanted to live or die, they just were killed.