A Good Death: the Ethical Debate of Assisted Suicide
A Good Death: The Ethical Debate of Assisted Suicide
Vickie L. Mobley
PHIL 200
Instructor Daniel Beteta Jr.
April 4, 2011
A Good Death: The Ethical Debate of Assisted Suicide Hippocrates the father of modern medicine stated “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”: clearly he opposed the practice of euthanasia, known later in modern society as “assisted suicide.” The debate regarding Euthanasia or assisted suicide has been a subject that has been examined, discussed and ethically dissected for thousands of years. Early Roman and Greek cultures regarded euthanasia as an acceptable practice, both societies sharing the opinion that “there is no need to preserve the life of someone who has no interest in living.” Centuries later, as a result of shifting morals and values, assisted suicide has become an issue of the ethics of quality vs. the sanctity of life as well as one that conflicts with religion and politics (Keelan, 2006). When religion and politics are removed from the debate of assisted suicide, what remains is the desire of a terminally ill individual to choose to end their pain and suffering, to die of their own choosing with dignity and peace, to obtain a “good death.” The debate for or against assisted suicide finds its origins based in religious, political and social beliefs and viewpoints. Those who support the practice feel that the terminally ill have every right to choose to end their lives in order to avoid pain and suffering. Additionally they feel that current medical treatments for the terminally ill leave them with no alternative but to endure undo pain and suffering, prolonging a life that will end, regardless of medical practice and jurisprudence. Assisted suicide provides quality of life because it affords one the opportunity to plan and prepare for their eventual death, taking into account their needs as well as
Vickie L. Mobley
PHIL 200
Instructor Daniel Beteta Jr.
April 4, 2011
A Good Death: The Ethical Debate of Assisted Suicide Hippocrates the father of modern medicine stated “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”: clearly he opposed the practice of euthanasia, known later in modern society as “assisted suicide.” The debate regarding Euthanasia or assisted suicide has been a subject that has been examined, discussed and ethically dissected for thousands of years. Early Roman and Greek cultures regarded euthanasia as an acceptable practice, both societies sharing the opinion that “there is no need to preserve the life of someone who has no interest in living.” Centuries later, as a result of shifting morals and values, assisted suicide has become an issue of the ethics of quality vs. the sanctity of life as well as one that conflicts with religion and politics (Keelan, 2006). When religion and politics are removed from the debate of assisted suicide, what remains is the desire of a terminally ill individual to choose to end their pain and suffering, to die of their own choosing with dignity and peace, to obtain a “good death.” The debate for or against assisted suicide finds its origins based in religious, political and social beliefs and viewpoints. Those who support the practice feel that the terminally ill have every right to choose to end their lives in order to avoid pain and suffering. Additionally they feel that current medical treatments for the terminally ill leave them with no alternative but to endure undo pain and suffering, prolonging a life that will end, regardless of medical practice and jurisprudence. Assisted suicide provides quality of life because it affords one the opportunity to plan and prepare for their eventual death, taking into account their needs as well as
References: Gupta, Deepak. "Euthanasia: Issues Implied Within." Internet Journal of Pain, Symptom Control & Palliative Care 4.2 (2006):2. Keelan, N. (2006). The Euthanasia Debate . The University Standard . Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://www.theuniversitystandard.com Lynn, J. & Harrold, J. (2006) Handbook for Mortals: Guidance for People Facing Serious Illness. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Marietta, C. (2007). The Debate Over the Fate of the Texas “Futile-Care” Law: It Is Time for Compromise . The University of Houston Law Center. Retrieved March 19, 2011, from www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2007/%28CM%29TXFutileCare. MLPD - Our Last Rights: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Orders and People with Disabilities: 2.1 Clarification of Terms. (n.d.). MLPD - Home. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://www.mlpd.mb.ca/reports/dnr/2.1.html Quill, T. (2005). Terri Schiavo: A Tragedy Compounded. The New England Journal of Medicine. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058062 Shepherd, L. L. (2009). Terri 's Wishes. If That Ever Happens to Me: Making Life and Death Decisions After Terri Schiavo (pp. 77-79). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Snead, O. (2006). Dynamic Complementarities: Terri 's Law and Separation of Powers Principles In The End-Of-Life Context. University of Notre Dame Law School, 57(04), 56-58. Stringham, E., & Parizek, B. (2005). “End of Life Decisions and the Maximization of Length of Life.” Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 30(2), 193-202. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from http://www.jspes.org/summer2005_stringham.html.