Right to Die Ethical Case Analysis

The Right to assisted suicide is a major topic worldwide. Different people have different feeling toward the matter in fact it boils down to say that the patients have the right to die with assistance of a doctor, this is said because of aspects such as a person’s values, morals and general ethics (Esther B. De La Torre).

In contrast with deontology, there is utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist theory. Utilitarianists consider consequences to be an important indicator of the moral value of one’s actions (Rich, 2008). In consequentialist analyses, conclusions about what is right or wrong are based on the consequences (Tanner et al., 2008). Utilitarianism is to promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people that is possible in situations.

“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.

According to Ullmann-Margalit (51) while dealing with the subject the agony of doubt deliberates that it is among the most confusing issues to deal with. Most people do not want to die, at least not now, and the debate of holding on to the inevitable and that of letting go heats up. Questions arise concerning the social, religious and ethical factors that have to be taken into play while considering end-of-life or right-to-die and thus bringing complexity to an otherwise easy decision. But the most crucial question to ask is: are those in support of the right-to-die justified in their movement? This will be the question that will be addressed in this argumentative essay.

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.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

This topic is an ethical issue due to the fact that several people are constantly struggling with where they should draw the line between “personal choices” and “unneeded loss of life”. Similar to the ethical issues surrounding abortion, physician assisted suicide is frowned upon by those who’s religious beliefs reject loss of life, regardless of their living conditions or quality of life. However, for those who are affected that do not share these religious believes and do not wish to die a slow and painful death (such as having a terminal illness), should

The purpose of this research paper is to examine the many different angles of a controversial topic such as physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is when a person kills him or herself and the doctor supplies the means knowing what the intention is. The doctor prescribes a medication to their patient in lethal doses. This allows the patient to choose when they want to die. They can take the pills at home with friends and family present if they wish or they could peacefully go alone. Euthanasia is lethal injection by a physician. PAS is currently illegal in the United States of America with the exception of one state, Oregon. Euthanasia is illegal in the entire United States. Throughout the rest of the

The right to assisted suicide is a huge topic that worries humans all around the usa. The debates go from side to side approximately whether or not a death patient has the proper to die with the assistance of a physician. some are in opposition to it due to religious and ethical motives. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they area the line that separates alleviation from death--and killing. for many the primary difficulty with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally sick. Many terminally sick patients who 're in the final tiers in their lives have requested docs to useful resource them in exercising lively euthanasia. it is sad to comprehend that these human beings are in awesome ache and that to them the handiest desire of bringing that anguish to a halt is thru assisted suicide.whilst humans see the word euthanasia, they see the that means of the word in special lighting fixtures. Euthanasia for some consists of a terrible connotation; it 's miles the same as homicide. For others, but, euthanasia is the act of placing a person to death painlessly, or permitting someone affected by an incurable and painful disorder or situation to die by way of withholding excessive clinical measures. however after analyzing both aspects of the difficulty, a compassionate character should conclude that competent terminal sufferers should accept the right to assisted

In this article titled, “Right to Die: Is it too easy to remove life support?” composed by Kenneth Jost describes two similar cases that started in the early 1990’s. Terri Schiavo and Barbara Howe were the two females involved in these debate stirring cases. In 1990 Terri endured a cardiac arrest which resulted in loosing most of her brain, being unable to move, and in an uncommunicative state called “persistent vegetative state.” For 15 years Schiavo was kept alive despite being almost completely motionless and uncommunicative. Micheal, her husband, went to court requesting the tube which gave her liquids and nutrition be disconnected in 1998. Schiavo’s parents battled against his request, one judge of the state ordered caretakers to disconnect

If the action itself is deemed inappropriate, then the action should not be performed regardless of how beneficial the outcome would be. To determine if an action should be taken or not, a deontological minded person would compare the performance of the action to a set of internal or external rule sets, asking if others with this rule set would find the decision acceptable or not. If it is determined that most with a similar rule set would find the action unacceptable then the action would not be taken regardless of the benefits of the outcome. Kantianism is a well known deontological theory, where it is believed that action are not measured by their outcome, but rather, by what motivated the individual taking the

Deontology states that certain actions are implicitly right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant says “a good will is good not because of what it effects, or accomplishes…it is good only through its willing, i.e. it is good in itself” (Kant, pg.106). An important part of Kant’s view is the idea that right actions are those that are not prompted

Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor's office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good.