Physician-Assisted Suicide and the Significance of the Kantian View

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

In homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered—should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

1. (problem – PAS): In today’s society, Physician Assisted Suicide is one of the most questionable and debatable issues. Many people feel that it is wrong for people to ask their doctor to help them end their life; while others feel it is their right to choose between the right to life and the right to death. “Suffering has always been a part of human existence.” (PAS) “Physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In deciding how to respond to patients ' requests, physicians should use their judgment about the medical appropriateness of the request.” (Bernat, JL) Physician Assisted Suicide differs from withholding or discontinuing medical treatment, it consists of doctors providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication to aid in the use to end their life.

Should assisted death, or euthanasia be an option for the terminally ill? In 1994, the Oregon Death With Dignity Act was formed, making Oregon the first state to legalize physician assisted deaths with restrictions. As of today, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico, along with Oregon are all legalized in euthanasia. The individuals wanting to end their life must be at least 18 years of age with a terminal illness, be a state resident, and have less than six months to live (Procon.org 2014). The question is, is euthanasia ethical? In this paper, I will be focusing on euthanasia and how it relates to the Deontology Theory.

New issues and ethical questions have arisen as a result in technological advances in the field of medicine. One of these issues is quality of life for the individual. Is it better to keep a person hooked up to a life machine, if the person has no quality of life? That is there is no interaction with other humans and the person is only being kept alive because the machines are handling vital bodily functions. These advances add to moral dilemma of physician-assisted suicide and to the intense debate if the practice of physician-assisted death is ethical. Furthermore, there are direct and indirect physician-assisted suicide practices. Direct physician-assisted suicide practices include: administering a legal dose of drugs to end a life, withdrawing or withholding life sustaining treatments, and palliative sedation. Indirect physician-assisted suicides are a little bit different in that the physician may give

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

The different perspectives discussed within the article regarding Physician-Assisted Suicide served to be highly interesting for me as I recently learned about the controversy behind the overall issue within United States and Canada. Furthermore, the article published within The New England Journal of Medicine addressed multiple different aspects regarding the advantages and disadvantages associated with PAS. Based on the information obtained from the article, my stance regarding the topic is neutral as the article addresses the importance of allowing PAS and putting an end to PAS from two different standpoints one being that of the patient while the other being that of the physician (Physician-Assisted Suicide 1450). For instance, the

The main question I will address in my paper is should a doctor have the right to help a patient end their life if that is the patient’s desire? There are two main answers to this question that strongly oppose each other. The first is, no, a doctor should not be permitted to assist in a patients “suicide” because it violates the fundamental tenet of medicine and doing so is incompatible with a doctor’s role as a healer. In general, “killing” is morally wrong and it goes against the doctor’s duty. A deontological argument against PAS is that “killing is never allowed because life is sacred or sometimes only allowed when another life can be saved” (Muller 186). Another argument against PAS is that “if once the practice of PAS in competent

This case is about euthanasia and assisted suicide. On September 28, 1991, Dr. Boudewijn Chabot administered a sufficient amount of sleeping pills and a liquid drug mixture to a patient with the intentions of assisting the patient with death. The patient, Hilly Bosscher, was suffering from depression, and psychological pain. She was recently divorced from a 25 year abusive relationship, and her two son’s had died. The doctor determined she suffered from unbearable pain, genuinely desired to die, and freely and competently made such a request.

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