Public Participation in Controversial Policy_BeltC
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Grand Canyon University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
634
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by cabelt828
1
Public Participation in Controversial Policy
Chrystal Belt
Grand Canyon University
ADM-634- Policy Study
Dr. Cream
March 23, 2022
2
Public Participation in Controversial Policy
Assisted suicide is a highly debated. The subject initiates emotionally and ethically
charged arguments on both sides of the discussion. Some would say it’s the right of an individual
and the moral obligation of society to assist or support the ending of a person’s own life to end
suffering. The other says it’s immoral to choose the option of death over the options of assistance
in solving an issue or comforting a person in suffering until their death comes in a natural way.
Then we must answer as to what is the Christian world view and how do we enter into
conversation about this subject as Christian policy makers being not everyone has the same
belief system (Dugdale et al., 2019).
Assisted Suicide Debate
Let’s look at the first view. Sweden has implemented assisted suicide into their public
policy as a legal option. As they define it, a person must be in “existential Suffering”, of a sound
mind and must commit the act themselves. Basically, they are provided the tools and education
by a physician to perform the act but carry out the act themselves. The issue with this wording is
there is no solid definition what is considered “Existential Suffering”. This definition includes
degenerative physical condition at which the death of the person is eminent and without
curability, it also hold that a person who feels they no longer have a societal benefit or see a good
future for themselves are experiencing existential suffering emotionally. So, by this broad
definition any person of a sound mind can go to see a medical professional claim existential
suffering and have a physician assist them in committing suicide (Gaignard, 2019). The moral
argument holding to this practice and definition would be that if a person is going to end their
own life, they should be able to do so in a humane manner as well as a person should have the
right to die just as any other right. This brings into question as well the issue of other
3
ramifications such as medical and life insurance policies. If there is a legal way to end one’s own
life with the assistance of a physician, then that is a medical procedure and should be covered. If
it is a medical procedure how much of that should be covered by tax dollars? Would it not be
cheaper and more merciful to help those on government assistance humanly end their own
suffering? Many hold this view based on what they consider merciful and economical (American
Medical Association, 2016).
Passing Controversial Policy
The second view is that people experiencing Existential suffering are entitled to
assistance to solve their problems, if possible, to improve the life they have and should die in a
natural manner. They feel that it is against the ethos a healer to assist in the ending of life rather
than the saving of that life. They feel that the implementation of a legal form of suicide will be a
slippery slope and decent into immoral practice where death is considered an acceptable way to
solve many issues a person may be having other than terminal illness and physical suffering from
that illness. They feel that once implemented the value of a person’s life will be reduced
eventually to a monetary value, societal contribution, and a viable option to be rid of the
“unwanted” (Gaignard, 2019). This side of the argument interestingly enough ties into the anti-
abortion mindset that the value of a human life is not determined by the other humans around it
but has its own intrinsic value as its own unit. I lean this way. Each person has a value and
should be supported and helped to improve their life as it stands, and the improvement of the
individual’s life will lead to a broader societal improvement (Dugdale et al., 2019).
The Christian Worldview
As a Christian how should we see this issue? Would it not be merciful to assist those in
suffering to end said suffering? The Christian world view is merciful and would seek to end the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
suffering of another human, but the value that God has for each person is to be respected. The
value of the person’s life brings the obligation to help that person live their life to the fullest
rather than to end the life because they are suffering for a time. That option however brings its
own issues such as the resources necessary to assist a person through a crisis and provide them
with the necessities to live a fruitful life until they can provide for themselves. I believe however
that the option to assist and provide clear definition and options for those in crisis to improve
their life rather than end it, is the proper way to move forward. We all experience at some point
in our lives the feeling that the future holds no real promise. Suicide should never be normalized
and upheld to the point that it can be a knee jerk reaction to a hopeless feeling. The message of
hope, redemption, grace, mercy and value of each person are foundational to the Christian belief.
I see no option at which to justify assisting a person end their life can be help by a Christian (Liu,
2020).
Your Values
The question to weather it is ethical and moral to allow assisted suicide comes down to
one single question. What is the value of a person’s life? Either that life is only worth what it
contributes to the societal whole, is only as valuable as the person views themselves or life is
valuable and should be supported by the collective society. I believe the Christian must hold the
value and wellbeing of their fellow man above the benefit that person contributes at a given time.
Although there is a current debate, I cannot in anyway see Assisted suicide as a viable Christian
argument in support of it. I understand that taking care of people can be a sticky and costly affair,
but it is a better debate to decide how to do that rather than giving up and assisting a person in
suicide.
5
Resources
American Medical Association. (2016, November 14).
Physician-assisted suicide
. Retrieved
March 23, 2022, from https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/physician-
assisted-suicide
Dugdale, L. S., Lerner, B. H., & Callahan, D. (2019). Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in
Dying. The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 92(4), 747–750.
Gaignard, M. (2019, May 14).
A qualitative study on existential suffering and assisted suicide in
Switzerland - BMC Medical Ethics
. BioMed Central. Retrieved March 23, 2022, from
https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0367-9
Liu, J. (2020, July 27).
Religious groups’ views on End-of-life issues
. Pew Research Center’s
Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved March 23, 2022, from
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/11/21/religious-groups-views-on-end-of-life-issues/