Physician-Assisted Suicide
The term "euthanasia" conjures up thoughts of the family pet having adignified death, but it is not the same when it comes to loved ones andfamily members. While it may be accepted practice to end the suffering ofan animal that cannot express its' wishes, it is not accepted practice tomurder a suffering loved one, and that is what euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide comes to - murder. There are two types of euthanasia inquestion in this debate, passive and active. Passive euthanasia is the actof allowing someone who is terminally ill to die, without intervening withmedication or treatment to continue his or her life. Today, passiveeuthanasia is a reasonably common event in the United States. Familiesinform the doctor their loved one does not wish to continue on life supportif there is no hope of recovery, or does not wish to suffer incessantly,and doctors remove all care and simply manage the pain of the patient untilthey pass away. This is the role of a physician, to manage the treatmentof the patient, not to manage their murder. Active euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is another matter.This is a form of murder, traceable back to the family and the physician.
However, physicians are supposed to be in thebusiness of healing, not murder, and it goes against everything a physicianhas trained for to take part in physician-assisted suicide. He writes, "The Christian love ethic, searching seriously for asocial policy, forms a coalition with the utilitarian principle of the'greatest good of the greatest number. There are too many emotional issues atplay during times such as these, and these emotions may get in the way ofrational thought. It is quite clear that sooner or later the national courts will takeup the question of physician-assisted suicide, but it is also clear thatthis is a much more significant issue than just a legal decision. '" [2] His thoughts applied in thiscircumstance ultimately seem to indicate the way to illustrate the "mostlove for the most neighbors" is to manage the last days of a terminally illpatient effectively and with empathy, rather than murdering them. Oregon has had a "Death withDignity" Act for the last six years. Many vocal opponents voice theirabhorrence of physician-assisted suicide, because they believe it ismorally wrong to end a life before it ends naturally, no matter what reasonis behind the suicide. While it is hotly debatedacross the country, the issue shows no signs of vanishing due tolegislation or law in the near future. These implications clearly show that those whopractice physician-assisted suicide can face legal retribution, but evenworse, they must face themselves, and fully understand their decision tomurder another human being, no matter the reason. Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work. It is a moral disaster, and an issue physicians and familiesshould not have to face. They may also come back to haunt the person after thephysician assists in the suicide, and by then, it is far too late. Physician-assisted suicide haslittle to do with dignity, and more to do with an easy way out for thepatient. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000,p.
Common topics in this essay:
Dignity Act,
Joseph Fletcher,
Dr Kevorkian,
Catholic Church,
,
United Families,
Washington Michigan,
According AMA,
physician-assisted suicide,
Praeger Publishers,
Medical Association,
moral ethical,
death dignity,
ethically morally,
dignity act,
medical community,
terminally ill,
terminally ill patient,
active euthanasia,
assisted suicide,
continue life,
cause patient's death,
believe morally wrong,
physician- assisted suicide,
death dignity act,
|
Acceptance Essays
