Ethical Issues Associated with Physician Assisted SuicideEssay Preview: Ethical Issues Associated with Physician Assisted SuicideReport this essayA human being should have the right to make the choice whether they live or die, especially if that person is experiencing unnecessary suffering from a terminal illness. If we look at the animal kingdom and our role as human beings within the hierarchy of life, humans find it is morally acceptable and humane to take the life of an injured animal if that animal is suffering and pending death. It should be morally unacceptable, as human beings, not to have the same compassion for each other as we do for other animals. Saying that we cannot allow a person to choose whether they live or die is, in essence, saying that their life does not belong to them, but rather to society.
The Criminal Code of Canada states in section 14, that “No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given”. This means that, in our society, if a doctor is treating a person in Canada who is terminally ill and at that patients request, that doctor gives the patient a lethal injection, he would be held criminally responsible for that persons death.
In looking at the mission physicians are tasked to uphold, the ethical principals related to physician assisted suicide appear very complex. Physicians must uphold the core principles of medical ethics aiming to benefit the sick without causing further illness in the process. Principles mentioned in the mission stated by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada state medicine is to help the sick by returning them to health while lessoning the suffering and decline that is often associated with their diseases. This means that the very ethical statement which at first seems to dismiss euthanasia, can be viewed as giving an argument for it. If the patient is unable to return to health then it needs to be determined whether it is of benefit to not allow that patient to end his life in comfort.
There is also the difference between the commonly allowed passive euthanasia versus the illegal active euthanasia. The Health Care Consent Act 1996, sets out standards for life-sustaining medical intervention. This Act determines what procedures can be stopped in order to allow a person to die. Passive would be used to describe anything which can be withheld to result in a persons ultimate death. For example, a patient can be starved or dehydrated until their body is no longer capable of sustaining life. Allowing a person near the end of their life to starve to death over a matter of days is legally seen as acceptable, while allowing a person to receive an injection which would end their suffering quickly is a criminal act.
In contrast to the ethical statements of the College of Physicians and Surgeons when dealing with humans, the American Medical Veterinary Association states that veterinarians have an ethical responsibility to provide essential services for animals when necessary to save life or relieve suffering (which may include) euthanasia to relieve suffering. It would be considered inhumane for a family to not euthanize their suffering pet. Police are tasked with ending the life of a deer who has been hit by a car on a road to prevent it from further pain and suffering. Although society deems it wrong to allow an animal who cannot be cured to continue its suffering, the same society somehow has determined that allowing a human the choice to end their own suffering is immoral. Interestingly, society would never agree with the decision to starve and dehydrate a dying animal.
A point which also deserves consideration is that surrounding religious groups and the common belief that God should choose death, not humans. Job 14:5 refers to God numbering our days and therefore deciding when a person is to die. Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, states “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted”. The argument can be made however, that a terminally ill patient is at the end of their days and it would be questionable as to how artificially sustaining their life would be in contrast to Gods will. Religious groups have allowed that the Government does have the right to decide
Any one of these points I think is really a logical question. As far as God is concerned, if He is all-powerful, there is no God in this world. Is there something in the heavens? Does He not just create something in the earth, that God creates it? What is the basis that the Lord gave to us to take this on God’s side? I think what gives this idea such power, is that He can create things by the hand of God which, although small, may be enough to give men hope. If God created these things, why is there no possibility that the people of the city and province would have to leave their homes after every meeting? It would seem that what is happening with God is a bit like a supernatural being who has created a certain number of people in the heavens, which He can then use to have them put up signs and other forms where they will give them a time to grow up. And since God is able to create something, it wouldn’t be fair to make something without it? However, I have said before that there is no God as long as we keep talking about the angels not being created, and the angels being the very same and being “born again”. I think that is a problem however there for us when we talk about the angels. They don’t exist and they are not our source of inspiration.
What about the people of England? Are all of their children brought up in what appears to be the Biblical account that the first man created every man? Reply Delete
Yes, of course. They are, though, the sole members of the Church, the only members of the Council when it comes to creation. The only members of that Council are given their own life and then to come to Jesus so that He may see them. This is not an answer to why there are still those who feel that the Catholic Church has not yet achieved its full size, and therefore only has a single member. Reply Delete
Ah, I was struck by the absurdity of your argument, because you don’t really say anything that seems even remotely remotely logical about humans being born alive. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. They can be made to die. They are supposed to and even have the power to make people to live, which is something like a god or something like that. They die. And then there’s the fact that every human being on this planet of ours who wants to become a God, should die. In fact, they’re at war, just like every other life forms in the universe. These are not gods, but humans, because of nature. It just doesn’t feel right to say that they ought to die. Reply Delete
It seemed to me just to make you realize that I could write