The Moral Principle Of The Right

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.

Imagine laying in a hospital bed living everyday in extreme pain with no hope of getting better. This scenario explains what many people go through everyday, which is a living with a terminal illness. M. Lee, a science historian, and Alexander Stingl a sociologist, define terminal illness as “an illness from which the patient is not expected to recover even with treatment. As the illness progresses death is inevitable” (1). There are not many options for the terminally ill besides dying a slow and painful death, but assisted suicide could be best option for these patients. Assisted suicide is “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication” (Lee and Stingl 1). Some feel that assisted suicide is unnecessary because it is too great of a controversy and will only cause problems in society. However, assisted suicide should be legal in the United States as long as there are strict regulations to accompany it.

Imagine a cancer patient on a short rode to death. The pain this patient is experiencing is unreal and unimaginable to most. The pain medicine that can be used does little to take the agony away. The doctors can put the patient in an induced coma, but what kind of living is that? It is not living. The patient does not want to go on. Is it so wrong to ask for a way out? With less than six months to live, the patient’s hope is gone. Many argue that euthanasia is not ethical, but is it really ethical to let someone live in constant, horrifying pain and agony? While in some cases having the right to die might result in patients giving up on life, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states for terminally ill patients with worsening or unbearable pain.

Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide, is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.

Many consider suicide primarily because they are convinced they are burdens on their families and society. Therefore, if assisting suicide for those with terminal illness is legalizied , the so called right to die is very likely in practice to become a “duty to die”. Many consider the law to be the teacher of what is right and proper, and such a codification would be manipulated by the healthcare industry, and by those who regard life as worthless

Sylvia Law, a published author in the University of Maryland Law Review, in her essay, “Physician-Assisted Death: An Essay on Constitutional Rights and Remedies,” addresses the issues in constitutional law surrounding the controversy of a person’s right to die. In the three parts to her essay, Law contends and considers whether “statutes that criminalize medically assisted suicides violate the liberty and privacy rights of terminally ill” and whether “assisted suicide should be considered a constitutionally protected right and also the ways in which these issues come before the courts”. Her purpose is to analyze and inform on the laws and challenges relating to this issue in order to make readers aware of the problems that are created by the

Physician-assisted suicide may change the perception of illness, disease, and pain. Because of this, physicians, patients, and family members may give up on recovery early (Westefeld, et al., 239). In contrast of cooperating in the death of a patient, people will seek to avoid it. This avoidance and denial of death may cause physicians to abandon their patients. This problem would be worsened by legalizing physician-assisted suicide because it would encourage the use of physician-assisted suicide when their disease worsened (Shannon & Kockler, 190). Legalizing physician-assisted suicide would also change the perspective the patient has about him or herself. The moral question of suicide is whether humans should have this responsibility over their own lives. Many argue that this act defies human dignity and that physician-assisted suicide exceeds human responsibility. Also, many people would assume sympathy in this situation, but some people may judge the patient for their use of physician-assisted suicide because it is using suicide to relieve pain (Shannon & Kockler, 191).

The process of assisted suicide, or physician-assisted death, is a hotly debated topic that still remains at the forefront of many national discussions today. Assisted suicide can be described as the suicide of patient by a physician-prescribed dose of legal drugs. The reason that this topic is so widely debated is that it infringes on several moral and religious values that many people in the United States have. But, regardless of the way that people feel, a person’s right to live is guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution, and this should extend to the right to end their own life as well. The reasons that assisted suicide should be legalized in all states is because it can ease not only the suffering of the individual, but the financial burden on the family that is supporting him/her. Regardless of opposing claims, assisted suicide should be an option for all terminally ill patients.

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.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), refers to self-administration of medication prescribed to a patient by their physician to end his or her life, and euthanasia, the administering of lethal drugs by a physician to end a patient’s life (Lachman, 2015) are extremely controversial topics. For several decades, supporters for the legalization of PAS and euthanasia have served as advocates for terminally ill patients who wish to have an alternative to a long, drawn out, painful death. These supporters have argued that death with dignity should be an option for these patients based on the ethical principles of autonomy and self- determination. With PAS being legal in several European countries as well as several US states, this provocative

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 topic of physician assisted suicide provokes a significant amount of discussion and controversy. Patients with terminal diseases, such as cancer, that can often lead to a prolonged painful death should have the option to end their lives in a way that will relieve themselves and their families from long term suffering. Patients with degenerative and progressive diseases such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), should also be allowed the option to choose physician assisted suicide before the disease deprives them of their mental and physical capacity. By failing to offer patients the alternative of physician assisted suicide society is essentially showing a lack of compassion and humanity. Several countries and states have passed legislation over the last few years that

     Once having a mere glimpse into the lives of the terminally ill or disabled, some are able to understand their plight; but usually most are not. In most cases, these people are able to take what they've been given and deal with it. However, in some cases, some simply can not tolerate their lives as they are. They feel that the only solution to their problem is to end their lives. Unfortunately, in some cases, the terminally ill or disabled are not capable of accomplishing this task by themselves, and are left trapped in a life that they do not want. In these cases, when one wishes to end his life and is terminally ill, disabled, or otherwise unable to do so independently, he should have the right to die by assisted suicide. Although most people that are terminally ill or disabled do not wish to end their lives, there are still those few who do. While examining the issue of assisted suicide, three facets of the controversy must be considered: the political, the moral, and the human or compassionate views. By supporting their decision, we support their right to choose and decide what they want to do with their bodies and their lives, we do not

In the United States today, there is a considerable amount of debate of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Many oppose physician-assisted suicide because they view it to be morally and ethically wrong. Similarly, many support the legalization of physician-assisted suicide because they believe human beings have the right to determine when and how they die. Personally, I believe human beings have the right to determine when they die and that the government should not keep individuals who are in extreme pain and only have a few months to live from ending their life with dignity. Through this paper, I am going to explore the many sides of physician-assisted suicide.

Although the Element of the Philosophy of Right is described as political philosophy, the text’s primary concept is freedom. Hegel’s dominant claim is that free will is the only way in which right is pertinent to philosophical science. He describes will as the ability to convey concepts into existence. The will exists solely when an action is brought forward and only in those who are self-conscious. The origin of right is crafted by the free will that expresses freedom, which Hegel states is the goal of right. Hegel affirms that the will is free. “When the will has universality, or itself as infinite form, as its content, object [Gegenstand], and end, it is free not only it itself but also for itself- it is the Idea in its truth.” (Hegel