Utilitarianism, Kantian/deontological, and virtue ethics are some of the moral theories that have been touched upon in class. These theories apply to our everyday life and in many ways make their way into the medical field and our everyday life. There are positive and negatives for each of these theories and all have their own take on biomedical ethical issues. In the article “Autonomy Trumps All? A Kantian Critique of Physician-Assisted Death” by Hoa Trung Dinh, the article explores the views and thoughts of physician-assisted deaths and if they are morally ethical. Autonomy plays a major role in biomedical ethics and is described as “making own decisions for yourself, not others, without inappropriate influence” therefore the autonomy of physician-assisted deaths would come in to play when the patient is deciding …show more content…
This article talks about physician-assisted deaths from a Kantian theory standpoint, in the article it states that “the decision to ends one’s life is itself not autonomous” (Dinh, 478). Autonomy follows the idea of making own decisions for you, not others without inappropriate influence; Kant believes that this procedure violates autonomy and therefore should not be done. Although the article is slated from Kant’s viewpoint, it is also important to remember the other viewpoint. This topic is morally important in our society because such procedures occur today in our society. In many states and countries, physician-assisted deaths are becoming illegal, but are there benefits to this procedure that outweigh the consequences? Physician-assisted deaths could possibly benefit and help patients in need that are terminally ill. These assisted deaths are morally important because if they are able to help individuals, people should be able to choose what they wish to do depending on the
The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.
One of the main objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) that Gill talks about is that many people believe it does not promote autonomy, but instead is actually taking it away (366). First, it is important to clarify what autonomy means. According to Gill, it is the ability of a person to make big decisions regarding their own life (369). Opponents of PAS argue that it takes away a person’s ability to make these big decisions and so it is intrinsically wrong for them to choose to take their own life.
Though, in this paper, I have addressed several points that Dennis Plaisted has presented on why we should not legalize physician assisted suicide due to the issues with autonomy that convince the public that the state does not care enough to preserve the lives of those with less than six months to live. I argued that the limits of who and when an ill patient may be allowed to receive PAS are present for the state to relieve the pain of the ill who wish to have control over their death, and that it is only an alternative option for those patients. I considered a counterargument to my criticism, which argues that the state and doctors shouldn’t allow for PAS, as it gives the impression that the state does not care about the lives of the terminally ill. Just as well, the reputation of doctors as healers would be compromised if they supported this form of treatment. However, I explained that the quality of life is more valuable than forcing someone who is ill to suffer until their natural death.
Ethics of healthcare depends on 4 moral standards and how they are utilised; autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Autonomy, which means self-governance, is the rule for regarding the privileges of a person to settle on a choice for them self, and respecting that decision. In healthcare this implies regarding a patient's choice on treatments, regardless of the possibility that it could bring about damage or demise to themselves. Autonomy is about self-rule, control free, without impact or influence from any other person, and is tied in with making an educated and un-forced choice about their care and medicines, based from their qualities and inclinations. Alongside autonomy is the principle of justice, which incorporates reasonableness
As a result, to keep a terminally ill patient for several months is exceptionally expensive. Therefore, this economic burden will effect the loved ones of patients, leaving patients not only depressed about the condition of their life, but ashamed and guilty about the economic hardship that they are putting their loves ones through. Thus, physician assisted suicide can save people’s money by not forcing someone who doesn't want to be alive, live. Moreover, assisted suicide helps to lower the health care costs for the future generations. If health care cuts the medical treatments for terminally ill patients, younger people will be able to have health insurance and take care of themselves before it’s too late.
The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.
Many believe it’s morally wrong to procure your own life even if you are terribly ill and feel like you have no purpose to provide for others. Kant believes it’s morally incorrect because killing is wrong and euthanasia is another way of doing it. The Catholic church objects euthanasia because they believe we should care for the life of others and not end them merely because they are terribly ill, instead we should help them get better. The action of procuring your own death according to both Kant and the Catholic Church is morally wrong and should not be practiced. That’s why this issue brings a lot of controversy to the table.
According to Bartel and Otlowski (2010), this procedure is defined as ending a person’s life to cease their suffering from fatal condition. The issue on this matter is that life will be taken away in the application of this methodology which makes the procedure immoral. However, according to Emmanuel (1999), euthanasia can provide other advantages. Based on his studies, he said that euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is beneficial to patients through the alleviation of unremitting and excruciating pain to 25,000 or lower than 2.3 million Americans who die each year. Moreover, euthanasia can also provide psychological assurance.
The Researchers’ actions were motivated by their own scientific curiosity rather than taking actions that were in the best interest of their patient’s well-being. Similarly, voluntary euthanasia also raises ethical concerns about balancing the patients right to autonomy with the obligation of healthcare professionals not to do harm. Similarly, Singer, in his article "Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian
Firstly, I will criticise Principlism as a unifying theory of bioethics wholly applicable to ICU based on definition and specificity. Lack of definition of the four principles allows much scope for interpretation which reduces their applicability to some complex moral issues arising in ICU. I will also contend that attempts by some advocates to award an increased value to autonomy are at variance with the origins of principlism and suffer from a lack of clarity in their conception and application. Then, given the myriad of conflicting moral issues surrounding end-of-life affairs in ICU, I will argue that the proposed methodology suggested by proponents of principlism to resolve conflict is flawed and overly dependent on moral
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.
In this case, and many others worldwide, physician assisted suicide is morally permissible at all ages for anyone with a terminal illness with a prognosis of 6 months. This is supported by act based utilitarianism and the idea of maximizing pleasure and reducing pain and suffering on an individual circumstance. By allowing a terminal patient to die a less painful death, in control of the situation, and with dignity, the patient will have amplified
The moral issue within this journal is whether euthanasia, the killing of a patient suffering painfully and is doomed for death, is permissible if it is the only alternative option to horrible, excruciating pain. Terminal illness concerns the sanctity of life and the two sense of “life.” Arguments are given that say euthanasia is morally acceptable. For example, when a patient is terminally ill, that increases the amount of unhappiness in the world and to those surrounded by the patient. Therefore, killing the patient would increase the amount of happiness in the world, the key point of utility.
In conclusion, euthanasia is an argument issue in current environment in palliative care. It is confronted with ethical dilemma. As euthanasia involve active and passive, voluntary and involuntary, the four ethic principles which are respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justices should be discussed. Euthanasia relates to the four ethical principles in palliative care is not only cruel, it is uncivilized. Autonomy of patient should make the value decision for their lives no matter the voluntary requirement.
The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.