For years, the morality of assisted
suicide has been heatedly debated. The
right of a physician to assist someone in euthanizing themselves has been put
into question. The focus of this report
is the controversy surrounding the question “Is assisted suicide morally right
or wrong?”
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, a
physician named Dr. Jack Kervorkian participated in physician-assisted suicide
with over 130 patients. Terminally ill
patients who didn’t have long to live would go to Dr. Kervorkian for help. He would then hook the patients up to a
machine he had constructed himself, and the patient would press a button that
would release the euthanizing chemicals into their body, ending their
life. Dr. Kervorkian’s services caused
quite an uproar in the public’s collective
conscience, or the shared values of society (ES, 14). After much debate and many disagreements, Dr.
Kervorkian was eventually revoked of his medical license, and even served time
in prison for second degree murder after being found guilty for the death of
one of his physician-assisted suicides.
In 1989, a law protecting the
discrimination of people with disabilities was established (ISR,488), and this
has become one of the main arguments about why people should be allowed to
choose to take the path of assisted suicide.
It
is argued [B2] that people
should be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to live, just as they have
a freedom of speech or the right to bear arms.
They argue that someone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness,
or is in excruciating pain, should be allowed to ask for assistance in their
own death. Instead of suffering until
death reaches the person on its own, the individual should be allowed to choose
to enlist the help of a physician at any point to end the suffering.
Another argument presented is the
legalization of physician-assisted suicide resulting in counseling for those
requesting the service. It is argued
that the counseling could help change someone’s mind. [B3] As well, if at
the end of the counseling, the patient still wanted to follow through with the
service, a physician could ensure the process of euthanizing the patient was a
success. This way, the patient could rationally make the decision to end
their life, by using the reason and logical calculation that the counseling
provided (ES, 15).
As well, people have argued [B4] that those whom
are kept alive by a machine should be allowed the right to enlist the services
of physician-assisted suicide. Someone
who doesn’t have any mobility shouldn’t be made to suffer. Often times, a family member is expected to
assist their relative in this decision by taking on the responsibility and
concern of the relative (ES, 318). They should be
allowed a way out, other than just “pulling the plug” and dying slowly and
painfully.[B5]
However, people [B6] have also used
this situation to argue that physician-assisted suicide is morally wrong. If a person is only being kept alive by a
machine, and has no mobility whatsoever, they can’t really consent to the
service. A family member would have to
consent for them, which could be unjust if the family member does not have the
individual’s best interests in mind. A
family member is not able to communicate with the patient any more than the
physician can, so it could never fully be determined whether or not the patient
wanted to end their life at that moment.
Physician-assisted suicide is argued [B7] to be wrong
because the physician is not God.
Therefore, the physician should not perform god-like acts, such as
ending someone’s life. It is not a
person’s choice of when to end their own life or when to end someone
else’s. People should enjoy the
opportunity of life that they have, take medication, and be appreciative of
what they have, even if they are living with an illness. This is still more than what others have.
As well, some people [B8] feel that people
who have reached the point of asking for help in committing suicide are no
longer in their right mind to make that decision. 43 million people live their lives with a
disability that can impair their everyday routines (ISR, 488). The illness or the pain may have caused the
patient to become depressed and possibly delusional, and they may not recognize
the other options they have to relieve the pain and help them cope. Therefore, a physician could not surely say
whether or not his service is what the patient is really yearning for.
[B1] Your biggest problem is in text citations, which is relatively
easy to address. See http://ignorantpeoplethinking.blogspot.com/2014/09/other-aspects-of-report1-layout.html
My advice is to keep doing what you're doing and
address the comments that I have left here.
[B3]Who
argues this? For every perspective, cite an example of that perspective, or if
it refers to a specific person only, then cite that specific example
[B5]If
this is your perspective and not the perspective of the people that you are
talking about, then exclude it. For every perspective that you articulate, you
should be able to say that it is an influential, common, or interesting perspective
of some person other than yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment