Physician Assisted Suicide
The morality of Physician Assisted Suicide has been in question in the United States since the late 19th 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 Rachels 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, Rachels believes that people should advocate active euthanasia (Munson 213-214). According to Rachels, in many circumstances ac
Weir, Robert, ed. Physician Assisted Suicide. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 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 the
Some common words found in the essay are:
Assisted Suicide, Dan Brock, According Rachels, Proponents PAS, Equivalency Thesis, Loretta Kopelman, Permitting PAS, Opponents PAS, assisted suicide, physician assisted, physician assisted suicide, Physician Assisted, Gay-Williams PAS, relieve suffering, receiving life-sustaining treatment, receiving life-sustaining, patient receiving, pain suffering, patient receiving life-sustaining, life-sustaining treatment, active euthanasia, life kopelman, dr dan brock, central aspect, assisted suicide morally,
Approximate Word count = 1242
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
