Kant On Euthanasia

We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved.  We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive?  For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.   Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their

Death with dignity National center argues that having the death with dignity law provides a peace of mind to the terminally ill.

Oregon Death with Dignity Act to the national level will remedy the controversy of assisted

Support for the participation of physicians in the suicides of terminally ill patients is increasing. Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide however focuses on the debate over whether the practice should be legalized. A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law of physician-assisted suicide in March of 1998. In 1994, voters in Oregon approved a referendum called the Death with Dignity Act, which was enacted in 1997. This law allows patients who have been given six months or less to live that wish to hasten their deaths to obtain lethal doses of medication prescribed by two doctors. Between 1998 and 2000, ninety-six lethal prescriptions were written, and seventy patients took the

In 1997 Oregon arranged to enact the Death with Dignity Act. This act allows people who are residents of Oregon to end their own life through the voluntary self-administration o lethal medications, as prescribed by a medical professional who specifies in this area of healthcare. The Oregon Death with Dignity act requires that all physicians, patients and other professionals to submit patient information, data, and annual statistical reports to the Oregon Health Authority.

The Death with Dignity Act was first put into use in Oregon in 1997, and was used to insure terminally ill patients had the right to decide how much suffering they endure; not the government. Since then there have been similar acts passed in California, Vermont, and Washington. Death with Dignity laws allow terminally-ill patients, who are mentally competent, choose to take medication that quickens their death. Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is a very uncomfortable and very controversial topic, but it is one that needs to be discussed. The rights of the American people should include the discussion of dignity and what is considered torture or the infringement of basic human rights.

The Death with Dignity Act, which was accepted by Oregon in 1977 has allowed 1,173 people to receive prescriptions and 752 people have used them to die from physician assistance (Egan 2015). These numbers are very important to consider. Allowing people to simply have the option to use the medicine to end their life, having it at their dispense, gives the patients the feeling that they have some control, and aren’t so helpless. These patients often feel like they have no control over their life anymore. The sickness is slowly killing them, and the option of physician-assisted suicide allows them to have control of one significant part of their life.

Rather than launching head-on into the often-contentious controversy surrounding attempts to pass similar laws in other states, Richardson provides viewers with well-grounded insight on the often difficult decisions that patients, supported by their doctors, have to make in ending their own lives. Oregon passed the nation's first Death With Dignity act in 1994, which allows terminally ill patients with less than six months left to live to request

Today, most states do not honor the wills of their terminally ill citizens wishing to end their suffering with dignity and compassion. Even with accurate identification of terminal illness prompting legality of some end-of-life directives, most terminal patients must adhere to conventional symptomatic treatments imposing slow physical and mental deterioration without regard to other feasible options. Information garnered from the experience of Oregon’s legalization of physician assisted suicide illuminates the feasibility of this end-of-life option. Physician assisted suicide is beneficial for terminal patients choosing to circumvent imminent mental and physical indignities; therefore this end-of-life option should be legally executable devoid of prosecution.

Thanks to modern developments in medical technology, people in advanced countries today live longer and stay healthy until they are relatively older. The technology, however, also allows some people to hasten their death and make it relatively pain-free. As a result, many patients suffering from unbearable pain of certain incurable illnesses from time to time ask their physicians to help them commit suicide. Any physician who is asked to do this is under an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, the physician is asked to help relieve one from pain and suffering. On the other hand, by helping a patient commit suicide the physician is assisting someone to commit murder even if it is the case of self-murder. This ethical case known as Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a controversial topic in the United States and elsewhere. Since it is an ethical issue, one way of resolving the dilemma is to evaluate the morality of PAS from the perspective of classical and other ethical theories. Among these are utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, relativism, emotivism, and ethical egoism. With the exception of deontology, any of these theories can be used to justify PAS easily. Deontology is the only view that places strong moral limitations on the application of PAS. Deontology's most prominent proponent Immanuel Kant strongly opposed suicide. However, the core principles of deontology may justify physician-assisted suicide

Welcome to What Shapes Our World, I’m Sienna Zerafa and today we will be discussing Unity in the Midst of Diversity. Australia is a pluralist society, meaning there is a variety of religious traditions and beliefs existing side by side. This diversity leads to many interesting views regarding several moral dilemmas. As a result of this, moral and ethical issues are widely debated by religious leaders and the general population alike, with the goal of finding the middle ground between what is right and what must be done. Euthanasia is one of the most contentious ethical and moral issues in Australia today, with some viewing the act as dignifying, while others view it as assisted suicide. The Catholic Church holds a traditional view regarding

I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.

Imagine that you are terminally ill in the hospital suffering an extreme pain like no other with a 99.9% of passing away but the only thing that is barely keeping you alive is your medication or machine hooked up to you. No matter what you are going to die. This conversation has been brought up many numerous times to the American Medical Association Statement and to the American public whether or not active Euthanasia is permissible or not. American Medical Association argues that assisted suicide is immorally wrong because it is intentionally killing somebody by someone else’s actions. “The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases,

Once the consequentialist discussed his concerns and philosophy about the thought provoking matter, the deontologist stands from the bench, pulls out his wallet, and shares a prized picture of Immanuel Kant. While the consequentialist and virtue ethicist look over the photo, the deontologist begins with, “(I)f I were Immanuel Kant, here is what I would have to say about the topic of euthanasia”, “suicide and asking for euthanasia do not show respect for our own rationality; they do not treat it as an end in itself” (Lacewing, n.d., p.3). The deontologist goes on to communicate about his philosophy, we all have a perfect duty to not kill, not deceive, and keep promises. These are the responsibility of deontology. Therefore, we all must stay

One of the ethical norms most often cited when discussing morality surrounding euthanasia is an individuals right to autonomy. “A person organizes his or her own private life so that the government, doctors and nurses cannot counteract what a euthanasia requester considers as the individual realization of his or her autonomous choice”( Quaghebeur, Dierckx de Casterlé & Gastmans, 2009). Arguments for and against euthanasia are made on the basis of autonomy. Quaghebeur et al., go on to state doctors must respect an individuals right to autonomy, even if they do not agree with or feel qualified to carry out the request for euthanasia (2009).