NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Physician Assisted Suicide The morality of Physician Assisted Suicide has been in question in the United States since the late 19 th Century. There are so many sides to this issue that make it extremely difficult to draw a line between when Physician Assisted Suicide is morally right and when it is morally wrong. When it seems like it would be right for one person, another person would be completely against it. Physician Assisted Suicide is likely to remain a controversial issue for years to come because of the variety of moral and immoral concerns of many different people. Proponents of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) present an incredible amount of moral arguments in favor of legalizing PAS and Euthanasia. One of the arguments posed by James Rachel's is known as the Equivalency Thesis.
This view is held by many people, and consists of the belief that killing someone (active euthanasia) is no worse than letting someone die (passive euthanasia) when there is no other way to reduce the patients pain. In the end, the result is going to be the same, but if there is a way to alleviate a person's suffering a couple days early, Rachel's believes that people should advocate active euthanasia (Munson 213 - 214). According to Rachel's, in many circumstances active euthanasia is more humane because it does allow for suffering to be brought to an end quickly and painlessly. Another moral argument of PAS is centered on the fact that a person has a right to decide for himself what happens to his body. This right is known as Self-Determination, and is extremely valuable because it allows people to live in accordance with their own perception of a good life. There are many rational people who cannot bear to live a life of pain and suffering; self-determination gives these people the right to exercise complete control over their bodies and take responsibility for their own lives (Weir, 89).
Therefore, if a patient is greatly suffering, but still competent and chooses an early death; due to the right of Freedom of Choice or self-determination, we are morally obligated to adhere to that decision or find someone who will. According to Dr. Dan Brock, "A central aspect of human dignity and the moral worth of persons lies in individuals capacity to direct their lives in this way (Weir, 89). " In other words, without the ability to exercise the right of self-determination, people are lacking a central aspect of their dignity. Physician Assisted Suicide is also morally justified on the grounds that doctors have a duty to relieve the suffering of patients. As previously mentioned, some suffering is so intense that it is unbearable, for these patients PAS may be the only way to alleviate their prolonged suffering. It seems so inhumane to do nothing except watch a patient suffer when there is something else that can be done.
In her article, Loretta Kopelman addresses the fact that the norms of medicine include duties to relieve suffering, and these duties could sometimes be higher than the duty to prolong life (Kopelman, 96). When a patient is receiving life-sustaining treatment, it is sometimes morally justifiable to forego that treatment in order to hasten death and relieve suffering. Proponents of PAS believe that just as a patient receiving life-sustaining treatment has a right to forego that treatment, a patient not receiving life-sustaining treatment should have the right to PAS if that is the only way to relieve the pain and suffering (Munson, 218). This argument is also known as mercy killing and is centered on the fact that the central goal of medicine is the relief of pain and suffering. Although there are many moral justifications for PAS, there are just as many arguments claiming that PAS is immoral and should remain illegal. One of the most common objections to Physician Assisted Suicide is that it is not within the power of medicine to control nature.
In essence, opponents suggest that PAS sets us against nature and how life is supposed to work out. Advocates of this position believe very strongly in the sanctity of life; the belief that human life is sacred and should not be taken prematurely. J. Gay-Williams is against PAS, and he believes that it does violence to the natural goal of survival.
He says that by permitting Physician Assisted Suicide man would be violating the commandment to hold life sacred and not take it without just cause, and acting against God, who is the rightful possessor of the body (Munson, 223). Those who endorse the sanctity of life viewpoint also believe that it is not medicine's place to determine when lives are or are not worth living. They do believe that it is the duty of medicine to relieve suffering, but do not endorse taking one's life in order to do so. Another objection to PAS is the fact that too much power would be put in the hands of the physician.
Opponents think that permitting physicians to assist in the death of a patient would be undermining the moral center of medicine. Dr. Dan Brock explores the issue that permitting physicians to perform PAS would be incompatible with their commitment to care for patients and protect life (Weir, 100). Although he does not consider PAS to undermine the moral center of medicine, he recognizes the fact that if it did, PAS should not be permitted. Opponents are also concerned with the possibility of patients losing trust in their doctors because of the fear that they would be given medications that were not intended to treat their illness. Brock feels that patients should not have this fear, as long as assisted suicide is restricted to cases that are completely voluntary (Weir, 101).
The argument that PAS puts too much power in the hands of the physician leads to one of the major arguments against permitting Physician Assisted Suicide. There is a very likely possibility that allowing PAS would lead to abuse, not only by physicians but by the family of the patient as well. If PAS were allowed, it would make it easier on families to decide the fate of the patient, especially if the patient is a burden to the rest of the family. People fear that making laws that regulate PAS would be "the first step in what would be an ever expanding practice of killing patients (Kopelman, 62). " Opponents of PAS are extremely concerned with the unjustified use of it.
They believe that the expansion of PAS would be inevitable, and would constitute a weakening respect for human life (Kopelman, 62). Permitting PAS has the definite chance of undermining the care of the sick and dying, and could also lead to lessened care and concern toward the patients (Weir, 38). By making PAS an option, there is the chance that physicians would be more apt to turn to it rather than spending the time and effort to care for the patient properly. Those who are in opposition of Physician Assisted Suicide do not believe that it should be allowed, even if it is regulated. They do not think that safeguards, which are made to guard against abuse, would be even minimally effective.
As PAS becomes more widely accepted, they believe that safeguards would be overlooked, and the wrongful killing of patients would only continue to expand and become worse. Kopelman, L. and Kenneth Deville. Physician Assisted Suicide: What are the Issues? Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. Weir, Robert, ed.
Physician Assisted Suicide. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997. Munson, Robert
Free research essays on topics related to: life sustaining treatment, relieve suffering, pain and suffering, physician assisted suicide, sanctity of life
Research essay sample on Physician Assisted Suicide Life Sustaining Treatment
