The ethical and philosophical ramifications of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as well as the questions surrounding a person's "duty to die", and the sustainability of Hardwig's stance on these matters are debatable. We will look at these topics in this learning journal and attempt to clarify the moral uncertainties that surround these contentious matters. Is there a time when an individual has a “duty” to die? The concept of a "duty to die" is one that is hotly debated and controversial. Some philosophers argue that, in some circumstances, humans have a moral or ethical obligation to end their own lives. According to John Hardwig's (1997) "duty to die" argument, one may have a moral obligation to take into account the welfare …show more content…
Many believe that putting such a burden on people is inherently wrong since it can violate their autonomy, sense of dignity, and belief in the inherent value of human life. Beyond that, a person's belief in whether they have a "duty to die" is subjective and subject to cultural or economic pressures. Do you think that there is any merit to Hardwig’s argument on a duty to die? Though some may find Hardwig's "duty to die" argument difficult to accept, he highlights some legitimate ethical concerns about resource allocation and its repercussions on families and society (Hardwig, 1997). When resources are limited, it is reasonable to consider the welfare of others as well as the greater good. On the other hand, the concept of a "duty to die" is highly nuanced and requires considerable thought from an ethical and legal standpoint. The moral obligation to lessen a loved one's suffering should not infringe upon an individual's autonomy or right to make their own life decisions (Banovi et al., 2017). When this topic is discussed, the most important things to remember are empathy, compassion, and dignity. Individuals shouldn't be pressured to make choices that they disagree
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”.
Currently, in the United States, 12% of states including Vermont, Oregon, and California have legalized the Right to Die. This ongoing debate whether or not to assist in death with patients who have terminal illness has been and is still far from over. Before continuing, the definition of Right to Die is, “an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can be reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less after the date of the certification” (Terminally Ill Law & Legal Definition 1). With this definition, the Right to die ought to be available to any person that is determined terminally ill by a professional, upon this; with the request of Right to Die, euthanasia must be
The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
Euthanasia has been a long debated subject consisting of many opinions and believes. For this paper I will be providing my rationale on why I am for legalization of active voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill clients in Canada. Active voluntary euthanasia should be legalized because it respects the individual’s choice, it allows individuals to flourish in their passing, and reduces the individual from further suffering. These are all important components of bioethics, and are all good reasons why euthanasia is not a negative thing. Active voluntary euthanasia is “the active killing of a dying person” requested by the client themselves (Collier & Haliburton, 2011, p. 226). In the paper I will also be discussing about virtue ethics, the principle of autonomy, and care ethics.
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
If one is to even begin to understand the dilemma stirred up by the proposition of legalizing physician-assisted suicide, they must first understand ...
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.
Giving a patient this option not only allows him or her to abstain from unnecessary pain, but it also allows the patient to die a dignified death. Colleges of the Boston College Law School Faculty Papers explain their views on assisted suicided to readers expressing, “We believe that it is reasonable to provide relief from suffering for patients who are dying or whose suffering is so severe that it is beyond their capacity to bear…The most basic values that support and guide all health care decision-making, including decisions about life-sustaining treatment, are the same values that provide the fundamental basis for physician-assisted suicide: promoting patients’ well-being and respecting their self-determination or autonomy”. The contributing authors make an excellent point stating the same values that are used in prolonging an individual 's life are the same used in assisted dying. Nonetheless, the majority of the United States remains opposed to assisted dying ignoring the individual’s mental, physical, and emotional pain he or she has undergone.With that in mind, this law also ignores the trauma close family members endure witnessing his or her loved ones face such an undesirable
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
Euthanasia, the process of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering, is a conflicting subject. I myself still have a hard time coming up with a definitive outlook on it. The readings in Chapter 3 have given me tons of insight on the issue. I didn’t completely disagree with any of the readings but the one that resonates with me the least is John Hardwig’s “Is there a Duty to Die? For, one I can understand wanting to die to prevent pain and suffering, but I believe the choice should be up to you entirely. In that sense, it’s not necessarily a duty to die but accepting that your time has come, or is near. With that said, Hardwick’s views start to conflict with mine when he says “There can be a duty to die before one’s illnesses
Because passive euthanasia is accepted by the American Medical Association in cases where it is clear the patient has no reasonable hope of living without the aid of a machine, passive euthanasia is not as controversial as active euthanasia. This paper will focus on the controversial morality issues regarding active voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the ending of a persons life by lethal injection with or without the patients consent. Unless oth...
Death persists as the great equalizer for all, and every person holds their own right to pass away when they wish. Presently in America, laws protect and grant citizens the right to order when and how they shall die when the circumstances do arise. People can assign now what is called a Do-Not-Resuscitate order (DNR) to exercise their freedom to control their own fate. The DNR order allows each individual his or her inalienable right to control their own fate. In America, all people face the choice of how and when they prefer to pass away, and physicians must respect and grant autonomy to their moribund patients while leaving their own convictions out of the circumstances with respect to the DNR order.
New York: New York University Press, 2012. Print. The. Kuhse, Helga. A. “Euthanasia.” A Companion to Ethics.
Pojman, Louis P., and Lewis Vaughn. "The Morality of Euthanasia." Introduction. The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. 821-22. Print.