Kantian Arguments To Forgive A Patient Dilemma

The idea of universalizability strongly suits this case. To universalize the patient’s individual maxim, we would see that most if not all will find suicide morally justifiable because everyone at times may feel depressed. At this point, we look at the duty to preserve life at all costs, and find we cannot universalize the patient’s maxim. Kant was tempted with this maxim, but his will finds it immoral. He once said, “I still have strength enough to take my life, but I hold this to be immoral. Whoever deprives himself of life is a beast…” The extreme idea of suicide also looks at self-love. She wants to feel better, so she thinks death will accomplish this. The problem here is with death, you don’t feel anything anymore. Another angle on this case looks at the patient using the

In this case, physician-assisted death is the action in question. Once foreseeable, outcomes are determined, utilitarians review the benefits and the consequences of a physician-assisted death for all the parties involved. Then, a course of action is selected that provides the most benefits and reduces the negative consequences. This approach is direct and logical.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

With the many debates on what is and is not ethical with the end of life care, humans are faced with more ethical issues. All humans have an idea of what they believe to be moral or ethical. Looking at ethical concepts helps us as a society determined what treatment may be ethical or moral for a person during a chronic or terminal stage in their life. One ethical concept that plays a large role in death and dying is autonomy. The freedom for a patient to have control over their own health care decisions. If a patient has the ability to make informed

Imagine a frail elderly woman laying in the nursing home in pain. This woman is 80 years old and has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and her heart cannot withstand treatment via radiation or chemotherapy. She has less than six months to live. Day in and day out you pass her room and hear her crying out from the immense pain. The pain medications are no longer working. She’s tired of fighting, tired of hurting, and tired of waiting to die. After consideration and discussions with her family she has decided to ask the doctor to help and end her life. The doctor feels remorse for the elderly lady and wants to help but cannot decide if it is the ethical thing to do because he knows that what he’s

The issue arises once more in the arguments concerning Euthanasia. Euthanasia, otherwise termed as “mercy killing” presents the option of a medical professional assisting a chronically ill, competent patient, in his/her own death. The argument for this is based around the a person’s quality of life. If the patient has no quality of life and is never going to improve, why let them suffer? In order to determine if an individual should be allowed to end their life, we must first determine if this individual can be considered a person. If so, then a person has a right to a good quality of life, and should be allowed to decide if he/she will continue living in misery. If not, then a doctor must do what is medically best, ie: keep the individual alive as long as possible.

The main issue of taking society into account for the utilitarian calculus is that society looks at the situation from an indirectly affected standpoint, generalizing the situation rather than personally being involved with the patient emotionally. Looking at the situation objectively, if society were to imagine themselves in the patient’s shoes, they would then experience a higher level of pleasure than pain. Knowing that patient autonomy is the ultimate decider for physician-assisted death, allows society to feel secure knowing their thoughts and values matter when faced with terminal illness. In addition, knowing that the patient’s family still receive the benefits such as life insurance from the patient after death, even when partaking in this form of treatment, allows another sense of financial security through an objective lens. In total, society would feel a higher level of pleasure over pain if physician-assisted death were to

People base euthanasia and physician assisted suicide on a moral and legal stand point. A health care physicians obligation is to provide support to their patients and to the families throughout treatment and death. Autonomous individuals should be free to decide their own fate when an important life choice concerns a private matter, and when the individual making that choice is near death and suffering without relief, then the state should not interfere unless it can prove that interference is necessary to protect vulnerable third parties (Schafer). People should have the right to request that their life be terminated through medical methods.

Utilitarianism attempts to consider the interests of others. However, when focusing on happiness, we fail to consider aspects such as rights and justice (EMP 115). When taking into consideration someone who is wanting to perform a deliberate suicide, overall happiness should not be the only issue to consider. This does not seem plausible since, if happiness is the only factor, anyone could justify any case of Euthanasia on grounds that they were unhappy and the world would be a better place without them. Doctors would be able to justify assisted suicide, which could quickly lead down a slippery slope where anyone who wanted to end their life would be able to do so at any time. Utilitarianism considers the feelings of others, correlating with the minimum concept of morality, which states that we take all individuals involved, into account. However, this theory considers everyone’s happiness equally important, which would take away, the intimacy and bonding from those we have close relationships with, as their happiness is no more important than the stranger walking down the street (EMP 116). Utilitarianism poses a strong theory, however it fails to address moral issues based on reason, as their only consideration for moral issues is the overall happiness achieved.

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

Take the case of Sabine, a 71 year old woman with mild ID and behavioral problems. She was regularly aggressive and had her own apartment in an assisted living center with daily supervision. Sabine was diagnosed with stomach cancer. An ethical conflict arose almost immediately because she had a deep fear of hospitals and mistrusted doctors. She refused to go to the hospital for any treatments, and though her relatives and caregivers tried to calm her fears and even offered medications to help he anxiety she continued to refuse. Ultimately, after they believed they had explained the seriousness of the situation to her the best they could, she was allowed to make her own decision. Sabine refused help, treatment, and even the medication offered to her. She succumbed to her illness at home. Her social worker struggled wish the decision stating, “You have to let go and accept that Sabine has her own say. . . . But it is always difficult to determine whether she is capable of making these decisions or

In the case that I became a terminally ill patient, I would strongly consider the different types of end of life care that are available to me. I believe that both passive and active euthanasia are reasonable end of life treatment options for terminally ill patients. If an individual is in unbearable pain and they have already been diagnosed with a terminal disease, it is inhumane to keep the individual alive longer than they need to. If I knew that I was going to die why would I want to bear not only the physical pain of the illness, but the pain of watching my family and friends suffer as well. They would have the burden of taking care of me, paying my medical expenses, as well as dealing with an extended amount of grief in watching me suffer. The last thing I would want is to be remembered in that way and cause a sense of grief and sadness whenever I am remembered in that state. All of this pain and suffering is completely unnecessary and can be resolved by quickly and painlessly through acts of passive, and when necessary, active euthanasia. Mill’s Utilitarian theory focuses the concept of happiness in terms of the gain of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Utility implies that actions overall should have a higher proportion of pleasure that outweighs the overall pain caused by the action. By choosing to end my life I eliminate the unnecessary prolonged pain associated with my terminal illness. I also eliminate the overall pain and suffering that my family

In this case, the basis of argument should not only be on the situation or the consequences but rather all. An act in itself would be either right or wrong; it could not be both (Edge & Groves, 2006). The worry this lady has is that the disease is going to progress which she is so right about but the approach she wants to use to stop it is what is wrong as far as I am concerned. Some people may say that she should be left to commit suicide because she is going to die anyway but that is not what I think is the right thing to do for this practitioner. Kant saw people as having an absolute value based on their ability to make rational choices (Edge & Groves, 2006). Before the practitioner acts to advise or help the lady, golden rule should come to his/her mind. The golden rule states that, “when actions have an impact upon another, for these actions to be morally defensible, it must be the case that the actor would choose to be the recipient of an identical action by someone else under identical circumstances (Edge & Groves, 2006). In this line of reasoning, the concern of an ethical society would be toward the care and support of its most disadvantaged citizenry, as they are the least able to speak for themselves. This is a decidedly duty oriented position in that it establishes the duty of moral equality, which could not be bargained away regardless of social interest or the welfare of the society as a whole (Edge & Groves,

I propose using a range of moral theories including, ethics of care, utilitarianism, and a less strict interpretation of Kant’s views on autonomous beings. As for Kant, rational human beings are autonomous and therefore capable of determining what happens to their body independently of what others may think. Kant would believe that any rational being attempting to end its life would therefore be irrational and subsequently not autonomous. Despite this facet of Kantian moral theory we must overlook the notion that any rational being attempting to end its life is irrational and instead continue to view them as rational beings. Although when speaking of utilitarian moral theory the thought of being beneficent comes to mind it is important to point out the idea of non-maleficence as well. In essence, the application of utilitarian moral theory to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide relies more so on the idea of preventing the most harm thereby helping to produce the most good for the patient. Applying the ethics of care to the situation focuses more on the family – patient relationship than the physician – patient relationship. The ethics of care state that you will naturally care for those whom you have close direct ties with. Often in situations of physician assisted suicide it is the patient that requests to end their

As in the movie “A Beautiful Mind” one ethical dilemma is when Nash’s wife, Alicia, is called upon the psychiatric hospital. She is faced with two choices, both fraught with beneficence, the chance of doing good or harm, to herself, John, and their child. She can commit her husband to the hospital and get him to receive the insulin shock treatments or she can honor his wish to stay at home with all of his paranoid schizophrenic illness. Her husband offers her idea that what he really needs is mental help. She chooses to try the” management” form of treatment and keeps him home. John did not show autonomy “self-determination”, he have no say as to whether or not he would return to the mental intuition. His wife held all of the power. He could take the medicine that was being prescribed to him and be mentally restricted or unable to care for his wife and child. The morally right choice was to take the medication, but he was finding barriers too much.