In the article, “Even “Compassionate” Killing Is Wrong,” Eric Hutchinson directly ties philosophical teachings to new legislation surrounding healthcare in Canada. He offers a critical examination of the ethical implications of expanding assisted suicide to include the mentally ill. By analyzing the works of philosophers such as Cicero and Augustine, Hutchinson offers insight into the moral landscape surrounding end-of-life decisions. He uses this analysis to argue against the idea of compassion as justification for including mentally ill individuals in physician-assisted suicide. In March 2023, Canadian legislation added mentally ill individuals to those who could receive assisted suicide care. Hutchinson begins his paper by addressing the Canadian government's rationale behind this proposed expansion, namely, the …show more content…
According to Cicero, while certain forms of suicide, like those deemed honorable, might be permissible, all instances ultimately amount to the unjust killing of an innocent person. Hutchinson extends this argument by incorporating Augustine's theological perspective, which prohibits suicide based on moral laws outlined in the Ten Commandments. By blending these philosophical and theological viewpoints, Hutchinson argues against the ethical validity of assisted suicide, asserting that it contradicts fundamental principles of justice and the sanctity of life. To support his argument that compassion is not justification for expanding the reach of assisted suicide, Hutchinson makes several arguments. My interpretation of his main argument is as follows: 1. The Canadian government is expanding assisted suicide to include the mentally ill, under the guise of compassion and a desire to alleviate suffering. 2. What is the difference between a'smart' and
In “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” Judith Thomson confronts the moral dilemma of how death comes about, whether one meets their demise through natural causes or by the hands of another (Shafer-Landau 544). If one does in fact lose their life through the action or inaction of another person, a second dilemma must also be considered. Does it matter whether a person was killed or simply allowed to die? The moral debate that arises from these issues is important because if forms opinions that ultimately sets the tone for what is socially acceptable behavior. Social issue such as legalization of euthanasia, abortions, and the distribution of medical resources all hinge on the “killing vs letting die problem”.
I do not believe it would have been just for the state to pardon Tucker’s crimes due to the moral injustice she was responsible for. In Jeffrey Reiman’s article “Against the Death Penalty” he analyzes the principle of lex talionis, which states that one who has harmed another should be penalized to the same or equivalent extent, or as the common phrase goes: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Reiman arrives at the conclusion that there is an equality between human beings by examining the implications of lex talionis, which implies one thinks of other’s pain to be as great as his or her own. Additionally, Reiman explores the Kantian belief that an individual permits the universal form of the objective which guides his action. For example, if an individual kills someone, then he or she authorizes the concept that he or she may be killed, and in doing so there is no injustice done. Thus, this belief also endorses the equality of individuals and helps grant credibility towards Reimans claim. By using Kant’s theory as a basis for his argument, Reiman asserts the concept of lex talionis “affirms both the equality and rationality of human beings and for that reason [lex talionis] is just” (Reiman). Therefore, I believe it would be unjust to grant Tucker a pardon for her crimes because doing so would lose the equality between human beings. Tucker deserved a grave punishment for the brutal murder of two people, but Tucker did not deserve to die.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
...an’s argument. I have shown that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is being performed and I have shown that James Rachel’s has great examples on explaining that there is no difference in passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. Thirdly I have shown that James Rachel’s premises follow from his conclusions not just from the conclusion itself. Also I have given one of his main weaknesses in his argument. Moving forward to Sullivan I have explained how his reasons make no sense according to James Rachel’s. I have also shown Sullivan’s main weaknesses and one of his strong points against Rachel’s. I also gave some of Rachel’s weaknesses but after all I think that I have proven that Rachel’s argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan for many reasons. Lastly, I have given my own ideas and theories of which argument I think is better.
Barbara Huttman’s “A Crime of Compassion” has many warrants yet the thesis is not qualified. This is a story that explains the struggles of being a nurse and having to make split-second decisions, whether they are right or wrong. Barbara was a nurse who was taking care of a cancer patient named Mac. Mac had wasted away to a 60-pound skeleton (95). When he walked into the hospital, he was a macho police officer who believed he could single-handedly protect the whole city (95). His condition worsened every day until it got so bad that he had to be resuscitated two or three times a day. Barbara eventually gave into his wishes to be let go. Do you believe we should have the right to die?
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some argue that society should honor the freedom of one’s choice to take his own life with the assistance of a physician; however, given the reasoning provided, it is in society’s best interest that physician assisted suicide remain illegal. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized because suicidal people experience distorted judgments resulting in not being mentally equipped to make such a decision, people who feel they are a burden to their family may choose death as a result, and physicians should not have to go against their personal doctrines and promises.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
The person has waived their right to life by consenting to suicide, there is no fear that would be caused if only those who are terminally ill and consent are killed, and the grief is inevitable anyways as death is imminent. They go on further to make an analogy with starving children [1]. This analogy does not hold, as the reason that assisted suicide is pursued is to relieve suffering, and is unrelated to the “value” that human life has. Finally, they argue that allowing assisted suicide will cause people to be pressured into committing suicide [1].
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
The intended audience was to target the Humane Society Members and employees, IHOP customers, and anyone who would have interest in cage-free egg suppliers. Humane Society released a hidden video, which was recorded by a smaller nonprofit, Compassion Over Killing, about cruel conditions inside an egg-supplier for IHOP. Humane Society had to get the video out quickly and try to reach many people in that time. Getting this done quickly allowed customers of IHOP to see this before management of the company could see it. The goal was to have better conditions to raise eggs. Humane Society and Compassion Over killing disliked what was seen in the video. Humane Society launched a campaign on September 16, 2009 using social media, web sites, and email.
On the other hand, the proposition has previously argued that Euthanasia spares a terminally ill person from suffering intolerable pain and that it is cruel to deny a person’s right to die. We believe It is not our choice when or how to conclude our lives as we owe our lives to God and to God. If it was God’s plan for us to suffer, then we must obey. his orders. We believe that there may be value in a person’s
Among other moral issues, euthanasia emerged with modern medical advancement, which allows us ever more control over not only our life but also death. Euthanasia is an especially sensitive issue because it deals with the death and the killing of a person. In this paper, I argue that euthanasia is wrong by responding to the claims implied in other terms which euthanasia is expressed exchangeably and understood by and large; ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’, and ‘doctor assisted suicide’.