Autonomy Or Self-Determination In The Context Of Suicide And Euthanasia

As euthanasia has become a prevalent topic in our society, many opinions have formed regarding the morality of it and whether it goes against Christian beliefs. Two opposing points of view, both written by Christians, explore this topic. John Shelby Spong argues in his article “Euthanasia Does Not Violate Christian Beliefs” that Christians need to reevaluate their view on assisted suicide and that it should be an individual choice. Chris Armstrong argues against euthanasia in the article “Christianity Condemns Voluntary Euthanasia” and contends that as Christians, we should never support the taking of life. While both authors agree that passive euthanasia

In the article, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, J. Gay-Williams asserts that euthanasia is both morally impermissible and imprudent. This paper will focus on active-voluntary euthanasia as morally permissible by objecting to some of the arguments made by the author, who defines euthanasia as “intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person. Whether the life is one’s own or that of another…” (Vaughn 278). While Gay-Williams presents four arguments against euthanasia, the second argument, “of self-interest,” argues that euthanasia is imprudent, has short-comings and is thus flawed. In this paper, I will explain Gay-Williams’ argument of Self-Interest, following with concerns to how these arguments do not fully encompass the idea

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

The issues of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are both emotional and controversial. Some argue PAS is ethically permissible for a dying person who has chosen to escape unbearable suffering at the end of life; it is the physician’s duty to alleviate the patient’s suffering and justifies aid-in-dying. These arguments rely on the respect for individual autonomy. “Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.” (STANDFORD REF)

The debate for assisted suicide has been around for centuries. In more modern times, when one thinks of assisted suicide, their first thoughts may revert to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, infamously known as “Dr. Death”. He proposed several ideologies when it came to the topic of death including that voluntary euthanasia should not be a crime as a person should have rights over their own life (Grant, 2017). Those that proposed Kevorkian argued that helping someone take their life should be rendered a crime on the same level as murder as it is taking a life. In the article, “Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life” by Richard Doerflinger (1989), the author discusses the opposing views of this critical debate and how it relates to terminal patients and others who wish to have an absolute decision over their own lives. This article, although written almost 30 years ago, examines most of the attitudes that still hold firm for many debaters to this day.

The moral and ethical aspects of physician-assisted suicide are important ones that shouldn’t be overlooked.  In virtually all cases of assisted suicide the pain and suffering experienced by the patient is unrelievable.  Although it is important to go to great lengths to try and ease the suffering through traditional medicine, often times it’s just not enough.  When the traditional approach fails sometimes more drastic approaches are necessary.  One such measure that has come to be highly controversial in this decade is physician-assisted suicide.  This form of suicide is hotly debated because it isn’t just a mere suicide, but a planned out social contract between two or more people.  The basis for my argument for assisted suicide rests in the values of individual self-determination or autonomy and individual well-being.  Self-determination is central to the issue because a person should be able to choose how to live their life or in this case, how to die.

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

In the Christian faith, although suicide is considered to be a sin, some denominations do not entirely disapprove of the patient’s right to die. In Evangelicalism “‘in cases where patients are terminally ill, death appears imminent and treatment offers no medical hope for a cure, it is morally appropriate to request the withdrawal of life-support systems, allowing natural death to occur.’” (Death with Dignity National Center) Where the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the American Council supports physician assisted

By learning God’s teachings, he taught us that his greatest gift to his people is life. The gift of life is so precious and important that by ending someone’s life you are breaking one of God’s laws, which is the Fifth Commandment, “You shall not kill.” This commandment goes against anything that does harm to someone’s life such as euthanasia, suicide, and abortion. As Catholics, we are called by the lord to respect human life and protect others. We accomplish this by following the Ten Commandments, most importantly the Fifth Commandment. I am one of the members of Stepinac’s Crusaders for life and we represent the Archdiocese of New York in the State Conference of life Issues. The New York State is attempting to pass the Aid-in Dying Bill

When speaking in terms of legalized euthanasia, and self-determination, Callahan feels that people should make decisions for themselves according to their own beliefs as to what comprises the good life. (pg. 226) He also states that we will, one way or another, die of some disease and that death will have dominian over all of us. (pg. 227) The meaning of this is no matter what we are all destined to die. In the case of death he first looks at suicide. This is when a person takes his or her own life, without the assistance of another. Euthansia, is a decision made between 2 people, the one being killed and the one doing the killing. He takes the stand that the very idea someone would waive their right to life, and then give another the

The world revolves around the perception that a healthy life is guaranteed until it is abruptly interfered with a life tragedy or sickness. When terminally ill, an individual encounters a disease that cannot be cured and is reasonably expected to die. This particular term is used with a variation of illnesses, affecting a multitude of the nation's population. From cancerous tumors to prolonged comas, lives are tragically affected. Living with painful, endless symptoms can lead to patients suffering for an immeasurable time. A common request among these patients are to be assisted in suicide, or euthanasia. There are many reasons towards the intentions of dying, but it continues to bring controversy throughout the world. When fitted to reasonable

Autonomy emphasizes on patients desires and demand. Physician-assisted suicide goes against the moral law to kill oneself in instances when continued living produces more pain than satisfaction. On maters ethics physician assisted suicide is supported by the autonomy principle. However, physicians should make efforts in assisting patients to understand the medical options in their hands as well as to ensure that patients undergo full psychological analysis in the event they request for physician-assisted suicide. Mental depression resulting from long term suffering due to diseases or a spiritual crisis might cause patient to request for physician-assisted suicide. Patient empowerment, by both family members and physicians, plays a vital role when considering undertaking patient assisted suicide by informing them about the implications of their decisions.

     Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.

For many Christians, we are mostly against Euthanasia. Instead, the Christian religion recognizes that we suffer death, then they go in God’s hands and trust him. When someone is terminally ill, both sides of people should prepare for death at any time. As for a different religion, their views and values are different from someone else. A quote from Pope John Paul II said this, “Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is deliberate and morally unaccepted killing of a human person. This can be summarized as you shall not kill anyone. As for the Right-to-Die, they believe human beings do not have the right to do that particular action among others. And, when you ask them about their beliefs about assisted suicide, they believe that it is morally wrong to help someone kill themselves. Pope John Paul II said this about compassion “True compassion leads to sharing another’s; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.” (BBC). When I read this, I thought we share another person’s love for a person, but we do not kill the person they are suffering unless we cannot bear it at all. We cannot bear anyone’s pain, besides our own is what I interpret from reading the last

In today’s society people have strict beliefs that they stand by whether that derives from their moral or ethical beliefs. Due to these beliefs it is the basis in which they stand on certain arguments, for example when people judge the foundations of what they believe to be right or wrong based off of what they have learned from the Bible. This makes a majority of people to believe that it is unacceptable to commit acts such as euthanasia, due to its being an act of committing self induced suicide. Although this can be seen as an act against the Sixth Commandment statement “You shall not murder”, imagine this situation “Someone you know is in excruciating pain for weeks possibly even months without relief, unable to take care of themselves