The 's Death And Death Caused By Immanuel Kant

For the Kantian argument for euthanasia, I will be using his ‘Categorical Imperative’, which states that you “Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it be a universal law.” (O’Neill 177). Kant’s ethics are based on the intention to act out of duty and are highly centered on the categorical imperative. A doctor’s duty is to save lives, but does that necessarily mean keeping one from dying? For someone who is brain-dead, or dying from the final stages of cancer, is keeping them alive actually saving their life, or prolonging their pain and misery which will end up killing them? Not allowing them to die is inflicting more harm on the patient, which does not comply with the duty of a doctor. When a patient is suffering as stated before, it is the duty of the doctor to either comply with their request for a lethal injection, or comply with the family’s request for someone that is in a vegetative state.

Within this chapter of Kant, I was really interested in the idea of, “[Acting] as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature” (Kant 31). This has been one of the Kantian ideas that I have agreed with. It is basically saying, “Act how you want others to act” or even, “Lead by example”. As mentioned in another journal, this could either cause a lot of peace in the world or a lot of negativity and chaos. One example that Kant gives that could pose a problem with this idea is the idea of suicide. Kant believes that suicide is a way for someone to use themselves as a mean rather than an end (Kant 31). As mentioned earlier in previous chapters, Kant believed that humans should never act as means and only as

Brittany Maynard, a woman known for her advocacy in the controversial topic of assisted suicide, officially ended her life this fall after learning of her fatal brain tumor. After complaining of horrible headaches, she decided to see a doctor where they gave her this traumatic news. She had two corrective surgeries to try and stop the growth of her large tumor, but they were unsuccessful. Her doctor then suggested full brain radiation, but after months of researching this option, along with many other, she knew her quality of what short life she had left would quickly deteriorate. With the help of her family, friends, and newly-wed husband, she made the decision to move with her loved ones from her California home to Oregon, where death with

Because Brittany Maynard made her story about her terminal brain tumor public, Kara Tippets decided to send her an emotional open letter persuading her not to go through with the lethal pill. Tippets felt since she was dying too that she could easily

The article “Brittany Maynard Death With Dignity Advocate for ‘Death With Dignity’ Dies” by Catherine E. Shoichet delivers the story of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2012 and was told she had from 3-10 years to live. However, in another diagnose that she had she was told she only had about six months to live. Maynard graduated from Berkeley and obtained a Masters in Education from the University of Irvine. She was a California resident and could not obtain her wish of dying with assisted suicide here. She moved to Oregon and there she became a resident. In 2014 Brittany Maynard consumed the drugs and peacefully died at 29 years.

The article “Brittany Maynard Death With Dignity Advocate for ‘Death With Dignity’ Dies” by Catherine E. Shoichet delivers the story of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2012 and was told she had from 3-10 years to live. However, in another diagnose that she had she was told she only had about six months to live. Maynard graduated from Berkeley and obtained a Masters in Education from the University of Irvine. She was a California resident and could not obtain her wish of dying with assisted suicide here. She moved to Oregon and there she became a resident. In 2014 Brittany Maynard consumed the drugs and peacefully died at 29 years.

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

Brittany Maynard was a young woman in her twenties who received major news coverage over her decision to use euthanasia in order to end her brain-tumor-ridden life. After adventuring for months before the life-ending appointment, the terminally ill woman and her family moved to Oregon due to the state’s passage of the Death with Dignity law. On November 1st of 2014, Brittany Maynard received a fatal dose of barbiturates which ended her life while being surrounded by family and friends. She was 29 at time of her death (Egan, Fowler, & Keating,

Matthew Paris explains in his article “Soon We Will Accept That Useless Lives Should End,” published in the Spectator, that dying is not a desire for the patients with a terminal illness. Terminally ill patients end their life because they did not receive pleasure from the life that they had. Pleasure was taken away in their lives when the pain and suffering took over. Patients who are labeled with a terminal illness lose their quality of life quick. There are many cases in which patients would much rather choose an assisted death over living in pain. In Brittany Maynard’s article, she describes the suffering that she endured in her battle with brain cancer. Even though Brittany’s cancer was labeled terminal, she still had many surgeries. When given her prognosis of six months, she knew her quality of life would rapidly diminish. She went through with physician assisted suicide for many reasons, one of them being that she did not want to suffer anymore. The same article displays a perfect reasoning as to how physician assisted suicide ends suffering for the patient. Brittany Maynard chose physician assisted suicide to escape the pain and suffering that she would soon face. Having full brain radiation would leave her scalp with first-degree burns. Even if Brittany chose hospice care, the tumor developing in her brain would eat away at her mind and she

Brittany was educated by her doctor on the possible treatments which would prolong her life for a little amount of time. However, since her tumor was so large she would have to receive full head radiation where she would lose all her hair and be left with severe burns in her scalp. After talking with her family she decided that there would be no treatments to save her and that those treatments would worsen her life style. She considered dying in hospice care, meaning that she would refuse radiational treatment and live the rest of her days on morphine to lessen her pain. After realizing that morphine would make her suffer of personality changes and verbal and cognitive motion loss she decided to die while was she was young and was able to function on her own. She did not want her family to see her dying terribly ill at the hospice. Therefore, she decided to move to Oregon where she became educated on the topic and was able to contact a doctor to assist her with lethal medicine that she would self inject when she started feeling like her symptoms were unbearable in order to end her suffering. Giving her relief after

Kant argues that suicide is morally wrong by emphasizing the importance of human beings and how we are not a means to an end but an end in itself…and he argues that people who do in fact commit suicide are using suicide as a means to ending whatever they’re going through, such as pain. Therefore, according to his views on humanity and moral worth he strongly argues that suicide is morally wrong because humans are ends to themselves and should never be treated as a means…which is why he emphasizes that we ought to never commit suicide. Personally, I think Kant’s argument is a good one…to a certain degree and more importantly that you should not commit suicide, under any circumstance. However, furthermore I believe that the reason one really

Assisted suicide, whose life is it? In reality it is the person’s life, and if they are suffering from a terminal illness they should get to choose whether or not they want to suffer. One very aggressive form of a terminal illness is the Glioblastoma Multiforme. This type of brain tumor is more common than a person may think it is also very deadly (Markert). Who is to say a person can’t end their terminal illness, pain, and suffering? They are just like every other human being who wants to die with dignity.

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

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

Kantian Ethics tells us the right action is to act from duty. We have moral duties to not kill and not allow to die wherever possible. Moreover, Kantian Ethics is concerned with the act itself but not the consequences. Kant’s theory said people should never be merely means to an end-in-itself. We should never kill someone in order to reduce suffering, or save money. Therefore, non-voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia are not allowed in this theory. Using the above example, when we has persistent vegetative state that want to die because we have no will in our live, we also want someone intend that others follow our will. So, vetoing a person’s will cannot from a universal law because there is a contradiction.