Many people believe that it is ethical and logical to allow a person to terminate his life if the hope for survival is small. They argue that there is no point in asking a person to continue his life in all sorts of pain and sufferings without any hope. On the other hand, many other people argue that life is so precious, and it is unethical and illogical to take the life of a person even if he or she is seriously ill. Such people’s point of view is that only the creator has the authority to terminate or finish the life which is created by him.
Every state in America has got a different law with respect to Physician-Assisted Suicide. In some states it is legal, whereas in other states it is illegal. For example, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act allows a person to terminate his life with the help of a physician (Hendin & Foley, 2008, p.121). Oregon State believes that Physician-Assisted Suicide is a Compassionate Liberation. Robinson (2010) pointed out that “[t]hough not legal in Montana, its Terminally Ill Act frees the physician involved from criminal prosecution since neither malice, nor the desire to inflict harm was at the cause of the assisted suicide” (p.15). On the other hand, the majority of the American states opposes to such laws accusing or labeling Physician-Assisted Suicide as a murder. This paper analyses whether the Physician-Assisted Suicide is a Compassionate Liberation or a Murder.
“Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that all persons have a moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they inflict no harm on others” (Andre & Velasquez, n. d). Even though the secrets behind life are still unknown, one thing is sure: the authority of one’s life lies on the person alone. In other words, the right to terminate or continue one’s life should be given to a person if his or her life continues in no hope condition. It
Cite this document
(“Physician-Assisted Suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder Research Paper - 1”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/psychology/539870-physician-assisted-suicide-compassionate-liberation-or-murder
(Physician-Assisted Suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder Research Paper - 1)
“Physician-Assisted Suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder Research Paper - 1”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/psychology/539870-physician-assisted-suicide-compassionate-liberation-or-murder.
Cited: 0 times
According to Jane Roh (2006), hot debate is going on in America over the practical, moral, and legal issues surrounding assisted suicide even though the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the physician-assisted suicide in 1997. She has also pointed out that in 2006 the…
Making decision in the chaotic and confusing daily environment of human society is what characterizes problems individuals are subjected to. Consequently, numerous ethical problems have emerged that human finds it practically difficult to make decisions.
The author states that one of the debates against the idea of physician-assisted suicide is because there is a belief that it will open the door to abuses. The true desires of the patient would be subverted to a system in which assisted suicide was a viable course of treatment, thus creating a pressure on patients to make use of this treatment.
This may take the form of a physician providing a patient with information about lethal dose and sleeping pills while knowing that the prescription may lead to the patient’s death. Much as it is tragic, its proponents argue that some patients may end up deciding that death is the best option instead of undergoing such a miserable and painful experience.
She has also pointed out that in 2006 the Supreme Court supported the Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, which allows terminal patients to seek the services of PAS legally. As the name indicates, Physician-assisted suicide, or mercy killing, is the termination of life with the help of a physician.
Those against this practice on the other hand state that it is unethical for physicians to help their patients commit suicide when they have taken the Hippocratic oath to protect and preserve the lives of their patients. Both sides of this debate have made some very pertinent arguments in support of their sides and it has been very difficult for many societies and people to come to an understanding concerning this matter.
However, it differs from euthanasia, which envisages the “palliative treatment” to alleviate the patient’s pain and suffering and to hasten the death by administering drugs by the physician (2229). Similarly, it also needs to be distinguished from “withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment” due to its infeasibility (2229).
However, regardless of what definition the process itself seeks to define, the reality of the fact is that a certain level of ethics, legalities, and contentious debate exists in surround such an option. As a function of analyzing these factors, the preceding analysis will seek to demonstrate to the reader how each of these determinants impact upon the way in which physician-assisted suicide is practiced and viewed within the current society.
Behind us we leave a legacy of new generations, happy memories, and a fulfilling life. Unfortunately, in a modern era filled with warfare, criminal acts, and ever more virulent and dangerous diseases many of us may find our lives end quite differently. People are faced with realization that a diagnosed illness will end their lives every day.