Ethical Medical Practices

1. Brock has two fundamental ethic values, the first one being individual self-determination. This value gives the patient the right to make decisions about their lives. Self-determination is valuable because it permits people to form and live in accordance with their own conception of a good life (pg. 402). When a patient exercises self-determination, the patient is exercising their right to take responsibility for their lives. This gives people a chance to make their own decisions about their lives that would go along with their values. The other ethic value Brock talks about is individual well-being. This value talks about how the patient may think that life is no longer considered a benefit for themselves and that they have now become a burden (pg. 402). When the patient exercises well-being, they believe that their life is no longer of sufficient quality and even with treatment they are no
longer needed in life.
2.
One reason Callahan would not accept Brock’s views is because of the distinction between killing and letting die dealing with the medical perspective. Callahan states that killing is the direct action of another who becomes the cause of death (pg. 399). Callahan also defines that letting die is the result of impersonal forces where no human agent as acted (pg.400). The medical perspective states that killing patients is incompatible with the role of the physician in society (pg. 401). Brock argues that allowing doctors to perform euthanasia is not incompatible with to the moral view of medicine (pg. 402). In Callahan’s article, he mentions that the doctor’s goal is to cure and comfort a patient and not to harm the patient (pg. 401). A physician’s role is important to make the patient better and in Callahan’s opinion the knowledge that a physician carries is to keep the patient alive and to not let the patient die. Callahan believes that the physician shouldn’t harm a patient while Brock believes that it is important that the patient be involved with their own
decisions.
3. I believe that there are instances where a competent patient should be able to request voluntary active euthanasia. Voluntary active euthanasia is where the patient requests a lethal dose of medication from the doctor (pg. 379). I believe that a patient knowns when it is their time especially when there is pain and suffering. If a patient is expected to die and does not want to go through all the pain that is to come of the potential time between now and their death then I believe that they should be allowed to choose voluntary active euthanasia. If death is eminent then the patient should have the choice of voluntary active euthanasia. People do not want to suffer through the pain. I know I wouldn’t want to suffer for months on end until death finally came for me. If a patient had a choice between pain and a quick death, people would choose the quick death. This gives the patient power over their life and not just wait for something else to come and take them away from the pain. A patient’s have a right to decide their fate especially if they are competent enough to decide. Their autonomy needs to be defended even if the doctor does not agree with them. However, if the patient can get treatment and potentially live a long and happy life than I believe the doctor must do whatever they can to save the patient. A patient should be able to choose how they want their life to go. This is the patient’s autonomy. A patient’s autonomy should be respected even if they request to have voluntary active euthanasia. There are times where voluntary active euthanasia should be an option for a competent patient and that it shouldn’t be denied by the doctors that are there to help the patient.