There has been a lot of debate over whether or not physician assisted suicide or PSA/E is morally permissible. This paper will cover both physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, which has not normally been argued in one discussion. This paper will argue that PSA/E is morally permissible and will include the most prominent objections also. Topics covered will include quality of life and individual rights, and the correct use of physician assisted-suicide. The utilitarian argument of less suffering and comparing the euthanization of animals to the euthanization of humans will also be discussed. The objections that will be discredited include the exploitation of the doctor 's lead role as a healer, fear of abuse, and that the alternatives to
…show more content…
What defines life? In the medical field someone is alive as long as there is brain activity. I think that being alive is very different from living. Is it really living is someone has brain activity but suffers daily and has no hope for a future of happiness? Living a full life and what exactly that means can be argued all day with no end, but most people would agree that freedom or self-determination is crucial. The ability for a person to control their own body and have the ability to do what they please, as long as it does not cause harm to other beings, is essential to human life. What happens when someone loses their fine motor skills? Or their gross motor skills? If one can no longer do what makes them happy whether that be programming video games or participating in motor cross I think it would directly impact their personal sense of dignity. Most people agree that each individual should have a right to decide what to do with their lives and their bodies. Why doesn’t this way of thinking then carry over to the way someone chooses to die? Rights and values like freedom and privacy are highly held in our country during life, I argue that it should carry over to the hardest part of life also, death. Why should I be able to tell someone with no future, someone who has accepted that death that it is not okay? I cannot tell someone who suffers daily in many ways that no, you may not die right now, you have to wait until your body can no longer fight what is happening. The arguments that I have covered thus far are the most common arguments used for PAS/E. There are arguments
What defines life? In the medical field someone is alive as long as there is brain activity. I think that being alive is very different from living. Is it really living is someone has brain activity but suffers daily and has no hope for a future of happiness? Living a full life and what exactly that means can be argued all day with no end, but most people would agree that freedom or self-determination is crucial. The ability for a person to control their own body and have the ability to do what they please, as long as it does not cause harm to other beings, is essential to human life. What happens when someone loses their fine motor skills? Or their gross motor skills? If one can no longer do what makes them happy whether that be programming video games or participating in motor cross I think it would directly impact their personal sense of dignity. Most people agree that each individual should have a right to decide what to do with their lives and their bodies. Why doesn’t this way of thinking then carry over to the way someone chooses to die? Rights and values like freedom and privacy are highly held in our country during life, I argue that it should carry over to the hardest part of life also, death. Why should I be able to tell someone with no future, someone who has accepted that death that it is not okay? I cannot tell someone who suffers daily in many ways that no, you may not die right now, you have to wait until your body can no longer fight what is happening. The arguments that I have covered thus far are the most common arguments used for PAS/E. There are arguments