In Leon R. Kass’ article entitled “Why Doctors Must Not Kill” he argues that in no circumstance do doctors have the right to use either active or passive euthanasia as a form of treatment. His argument for his position is unfounded and inconclusive for the fact that he does not have enough factual information to substantiate his claim. Mr. Kass has several main points he uses to argue his claim. First is his claim that if doctors were given this “license to kill” then doctors’ ethics would spiral out of control and doctors would begin euthanizing patients that did not necessarily want or need to be euthanized. His second major point is that doctors do not have the right to play God, by deciding a persons’ fate. Mr. Kass’s arguments are not based on factual info but on his own personal moral beliefs.
Mr. Kass‘ argument that doctors will begin performing unnecessary euthanizations is an unfounded standpoint. He believes that doctors will begin euthanizing patients that are “chronically but not terminally ill” or in some cases doctors will actively euthanize patients that are “Unruly or resist doctors best efforts.” (Pg. 1001) Mr. Kass does not show evidence to substantiate his claim. He does use a surv
. . .
ey of 300 physicians that was performed in Holland, where they were each asked had they ever performed euthanasia, and 40 percent had done so without the patients’ request (pg. There are many cases in which the patient has no family and the bills then go onto the government. He also could have not used moral issues as a support, because after all moral issues are not a support but merely an opinion. Kass fails to expose in his essay, and that is the fact of economics of artificial life support. This argument is an argument that is not based on factual information but that of Mr. He uses this information as a support for his belief. Without this information included in this survey, it does not make this survey a sufficient enough source to support his claim. If there is no other treatment for the patient, and they are being kept alive by these machines, then aren’t we as society preventing what is nature’s course in keeping these people alive? Every attempt possible should be performed to try and treat the patient but if there are no other alternative treatments available then frivolously spending money to delay death is an immoral act in itself. Had he corrected these points then his essay would have been convincing and persuasive enough to influence ones perspective on “Why Doctors Must Not Kill. Government cannot afford to pay for procedures that are in effect just delaying the inevitable.
Approximate Word count =
824
Approximate Pages =
3 (250 words per page double spaced)
Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.
| CREDIT CARD |
ONLINE CHECK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN BY PHONE
|
|
|
