Murder is wrong, as one has chosen to take the life of another human being. Suicide is wrong, as one has taken one’s own life. It is not debatable that both of these forms of death are not acceptable within our society.
Death of any form is considered bad, however, murder and suicide are both considered extremely bad as both are methods of murder as they are conscious decisions to take a life. In every view, taking a life is frowned upon and yet in some cases death through Physician assisted suicide may be viewed as acceptable. In some circles Dr.Kevorkian was viewed as a hero while in other circles he was viewed as a murderer.
This is the country where freedom is assured, freedom to choose what we want to do, freedom to say what we want, freedom to be what we want as long as these freedoms are thought to be within our realms of normalcy within our society. If we are in the freest country in the world, then having a physician assisted suicide for the right reasons should be an option. We live in a country where the death penalty is enforced, and supported by a majority of the people in our society.Some people don’t want a convicted offender to die painfully, so they have changed the methods of death to be less painful. We attempt to lessen the pain of someone who did something heinous enough to justify being sentenced to death, yet we won’t take the pain from someone asking to die to prevent severe pain. The decision of a person to terminate their own life is not a decision that one comes to easily.
Let’s not confuse this with suicide whereas a perfectly healthy person decides to end their life prematurely based on a mood or feeling that one may be having at any particular moment.This decision is made after one has suffered or is suffering for extended periods of time and there is no hope in sight for that person’s condition to improve. Understand that the decision to take someone off life support may also be considered physician assisted suicide. Family members typically make these decisions and do so based on conversations had with a patient or based on living wills.
From an ethical standpoint choosing to terminate one’s life is not a decision that affects too many people other than the family involved, if there is any.This practice is not about what is right or wrong by society’s standards, but what is right or wrong for the person making the decision. “Rather than looking at the consequences of an act, deontology looks at the reason for which an act is done, and the rule according to which one chooses to act. Deontology doesn’t deny that acts have consequences; rather, it insists that those consequences should not play a role in our moral evaluation of such acts. ”In a case such as physician assisted suicide the doctor is indeed breaking the law and an oath to save lives. The doctor assisting could be sentenced to jail time, fined, and have their medical license revoked.
The person asking for death does not want anyone to get into trouble, but instead wants their own suffering to end. This topic is so very controversial in the fact that it seems as if one person is simply taking the life of another. Would one want to see their own mother, father, sister, or brother suffering if they did not have to? Imagine a loved one has become sick.The initial symptoms of this sickness are sharp stabbing pains throughout the body. The pain radiates throughout the body for minutes at a time causing extreme discomfort and intolerable pain. After several months of going back and forth to specialists for test after test it is determined that the doctors are unsure of what it is that is causing this.
Medication is given to try to help with the pain, but there are no guarantees that it will work. After more time passes, the sickness is now causing organs within the body to not work properly. It is determined that these organs will eventually shut down.As these organs are shutting down even more pain will be experienced and one will not be able to get around by one’s self. In fact, the illness is causing one’s loved one to be confined to hospital care for extended periods of time.
Years have passed and the cause of the sickness still cannot be determined and therefore it is not treatable, however, with the aid of the hospital machines life can be possibly extended for up to a year. The sharp stabbing pains still hurt and the body aches and hurts due to this sickness and the only thing keeping them alive are the machines.Conversations can still be had and emotions can still be expressed. You are the one that must make the decision as to how this event will finally end. Does one make the decision based on what society has deemed ethically correct or does one make the decision based on what is correct for ones loved one? By having the very machines that are keeping your loved one alive turned off you can end their pain and suffering. Your loved one has expressed their feelings about their situation; however, they cannot make the decision.
Although previously preconceived thoughts about this very situation may have been discussed and one feels that they must abide by society’s ethical values; what decision one makes is ultimately up to what is best for one’s situation. A shift in our preconceived notions of what we once thought was right can be challenged when put in the actual situation, such is the case of Susan Wolf. Susan had many conversations with her father about this exact issue when he was healthy, “he challenged my views on advance directives by insisting that he would want “everything,” even in a persistent vegetative state.I made the money, so I can spend it. ” (Wolf, S. , (2008), Confronting Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: My Father’s Death).
The shift occurred when she saw her father in the hospital, in severe pain asking to die; it is in times of stress that peoples ideals change. If an animal were in a situation such as this the solution would be simple, euthanasia. One would put the animal to sleep to avoid it from suffering more than it had to. Taking that same compassion for a human being is not as simple. There are human rights groups that would complain from here to tomorrow about euthanizing a human.At the forefront would be the “American Medical Association” that is pro-abortion but against physician assisted suicide, “"There is, in short, compelling evidence of the need to ensure that all patients have access to quality palliative care, but not of any need for physician-assisted suicide .
.. " The AMA is keenly aware that doctors perform a crucial act of healing and saving life. Accepting a dual role of taking life, while at the same time protecting life, would undermine their credibility and the sacred trust that exists between a patient and doctor” (Gomez, C. , (2000) AMA: Anti-Euthanasia, Pro-Pain Control).
Physician assisted suicide is a victimless crime under the right set of circumstances. If an adult in their right state of mind has made the decision that they would like their life to be terminated in a painless manner, I believe that their wish should be granted. The right set of circumstances would include irreversible damage to the mind or body, deteriorating condition of the mind or body, and pain or suffering from an irreversible condition. These indeed are generalized and more specific instruction could indeed be specified as needed.
The American Medical Association (AMA) deemed that life should come before humanity.Regardless of the circumstance or situation, life must be preserved. As doctors it is their job to save lives, not end them. The human condition is what matters, how that defined is entirely up to the person. Ethically the human condition may be following the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. An ethical egoist may look at the situation and wonder which situation may benefit them the most.
It is for each person in the situation to make their own decisions for it is only those people that are affected by the decision that they must live the rest of their life with.In the view of relativism it would seem that the only view that would be correct would be the popular view within our society. I believe that the relative view could be broken down into a smaller subculture within our society. The smaller subculture within our society would be the family, as those views within the family are more specific to a family than are the general views of our society. An example of this could be seen on the death penalty, two families live next door to one another and a person in the community has been murdered.
After the facts are out, the convicted offender has been sentenced to death.Both families believe in the death penalty and feel that he should indeed be put to death. Family one believes that the convicted offender should be placed in the electric chair and should suffer for the wrong he has done. Family two believes that the punishment of death is severe enough and that lethal injection should be utilized as it is a painless method and more humane.
This is how two subcultures within the same society is developed and supported, therefore being relative to the subculture. Utilizing the theory of relativism, most people will have an opinion on a matter that pertains to life and death.People that have encountered someone in a dying state that is only being sustained through life support systems may very well be of the opinion that they should be able to choose to live or die. While people that have not been subject or blessed enough to not know someone that has suffered from something like this may think that it is insane to end someone’s life that could still live. They may feel that being alive is better than not being alive.
Making the decision to end the life of a family member is truly only relative to those living family members.Now viewing this same concept utilizing the theory of emotivism creates more of an emotional view on the perspective. Emotivism makes the response more of an emotional plea. One’s father or mother is being kept alive through only life support systems and is begging an pleading to die as living is only causing them to suffer excruciating pain.
The doctor’s don’t respond emotionally to the plea, however, a family member with the ability to aid in the decision making process can. The family member must rely not on what is right or wrong by society’s standards, but what they feel is right or wrong.One may believe that they will hurt by making this decision to end the life of a loved one, however, by not making the decision to end a loved one’s life, the loved one will suffer and hurt. The simple decision is an emotional one and one loves their father or mother more than they love themselves.
Therefore the decision comes down to how much they love their family member. I have always been taught that “if you love something, set it free”, there is more to that, however, and that indeed is the important part of the emotional response.The final way that I would like to look at this subject is using the theory of ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is by far the most selfish in this scenario as it looks at what benefits me the most. A person that has their father dying may very well want to keep their father alive regardless of the suffering that their father may be experiencing.
They simply want to hang on to their father for as long as they can, so that they don’t have to experience the pain of not having that person in their life. An ethical egoist may even want to end the life of a semi-suffering parent if they stand to inherit something in the will.With this view, the only thing that can be gained is what the egoist wants. Their needs will always surpass the needs of others. The ethical egoist will answer to no one but themselves and in this matter, please don’t ever let my child be the one that develops the tendencies of the ethical egoist.
I don’t want that person deciding if I should live or die. In this case, I would be very thankful that doctors are against physician assisted suicide. I understand that physician assisted suicide is not legal in the United States and that there are those that put humanity before ethics.Dr.
Jack Kevorkian was sentenced to years in prison because he did not. He helped suffering people end their lives on their terms and should be praised not punished for doing so. There are many ways to look at this difficult subject of physician assisted suicide, but I believe in the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I ever am in a vegetative state and there is not hope for recovery and I may be suffering from pain or the emotional strain due to the loss of my ability to communicate, please show mercy on me and my soul and end my life.
My loved ones should feel no remorse and continue to live life in the way that would emphasize that they are indeed living. Murder and suicide are wrong according to a majority of the people in our society. Death of any form is bad, however, murder and suicide are both considered extremely bad as both are methods of murder as they are conscious decisions to take a life. In every view, taking a life is frowned upon and yet in some cases death through physician assisted suicide may be viewed as acceptable.Physician assisted suicide is truly putting the needs and well being of an individual ahead of society’s preconceived notions of right and wrong.
Physician assisted suicide does not take the ethical theory of utilitarianism; but instead takes the theory of deontology and puts the reason for the action at the forefront of the ethical right or wrong. A person in continual pain with no opportunity of improvement and being sustained by machines is no way to live; it is just a way to prolong life and postpone death.
