Physician-assisted suicide or Euthanasia is one of the most controversial elements in modern medicine. Consequently, i t has drawn varied comments based on morality and ethics. The two sides of the argument are advanced by Patrick Lee and John Lachs whose positions concerning euthanasi a differ . Lee looks at euthanasia as an abstractly immoral undertaking while Lachs, on the other hand, queries the overzealous nature of moralists in degrading medical interventions and strides made in the quest of alleviating suffering. The two schools of thought form the basis of this paper.
Euthanasia is the intentional ending of or termination of life to alleviate one’s suffering. In many instances, euthanasia is self-determined where an individual may request to have his or her life terminated . However, in other cases it is physician-as s isted. Euthanasia in the recent past has been adopted by numerous countries , notable among them being the Netherlands (Hester, 2010). Subsequently, many patients have perceive d the practice as an alternative to terminal suffering.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Lee i s one of the vocal voices against E uthanasia and argues that the act contravenes the sanctity of life. He cites that assisted suicide is morally wrong as it goes against the intrinsic qualities attached to the innocent human. Further, h e claims that it is not a person’s decision to take a way our either own live or that of another individual. Euthanasia, in his view, degrades human life to a mere choice that can be destroyed for the sake of others or oneself (Hester, 2010). The practice also generates an attitude which can lead to the placement of price on human life. In that sense, Lee believes that human life is irreplaceably good , meaning that any other condition cannot compensate its loss (Caplan & Arp, 2014). The trivializing of human life may also lead to the increase in deaths that are founded on very illogical and immoral grounds. Euthanasia , in this respect, should be linked to a particular good or benefit which cannot be realized without its execution. Lee further attaches the element of G odliness in his argument. He cites that E uthanasia goes against the love of oneself, neighbor and God. Additionally, Lee notes that many people do not dissociate a person that is suffering from the suffering. He argues that whe n individuals face a suffering loved one, they automatically generate an emotional response. Individuals thus react to the “emotional repugnance” , thinking that the best way to approach such a scenario is not to remove the pain but rather destroy the life of the suffering individual altogether (Caplan & Arp, 2014).
Lachs, on the other hand, bases his argument on the moralists misunderstanding of the concepts behind euthanasia. The right to kill , he believes , is not only a preserve for one but is transferrable to those close to him or her. Lach s argues that this right is equal to the right to transfer organs. Euthanasia, in this instance, should be appreciated for its distinct circumstances (Caplan & Arp, 2014). Not all circumstances warrant euthanasia by self-determination. There is a difference between a terminally ill individual in constant pain and a teenager on a dental clinic chair wishing he or she could die. Therefore, e ach party in the decision-making process , whether patient, physician or loved one must have notable justifications for practicing E uthanasia . For a patient, reflective judgment of long-term interests, established values, and permanent interests should form the core reasons. The physician must consider whether personal ethics permit him or her to verify the patients’ justifiability . Moreover, Lachs notes that such a patient needs to be thoroughly questioned by both the family and friends on the said decision.
The two schools of thoughts represent the divergent views held by many regarding the ethical and moral nature of E uthanasia . Physician-assisted suicide is still misunderstood by many due to the motivations behind it (Hester, 2010). Though the concept is logically sound , it is yet to appeal to the moralists w ho view life for its sanctity in religious and ethical context. In this case, t he proper moral principle to apply in this case is Lachs because his views are logical enough . This moral principle recommends the need for concerted efforts and opinions from various parties before undertaking E uthanasia. This is critical because t he need for verified decisions is prudent as it leaves no room for uncertainty when it comes to pertinent decisions about physician-assisted suicide that may be self-determined.
References
Caplan, A. L. & Arp, R. (2014). Contemporary Debates in Bioethics . Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell .
Hester, D. M. (2010). End-of-life care and pragmatic decision making: A bioethical perspective . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
