Physician Assisted Suicide: Criterialism Versus Autonomy Essay Example

incompetent patients were still living human beings and that euthanasia could be seen as a form of homicide. Now that the techniques have been refined, the sanctity of life argument has lost most of its strength.

Therefore, the basic reason for the arguments against physician-assisted suicide has surpassed the idea of “wrongful killing” to the moral value of the life of a dying patient. According to Mary Ann Warren, a former professor of philosophy, an incompetent patient is not a “person” and as a result, the obligation to respect the independent decisions of such a patient loses its validity since such subjects are incapable of making significant decisions by themselves.

What lies behind this alleged sympathy with the suffering sick or the elderly who can no longer “enjoy life” or have “quality of life” is the argument that terminally ill patients are not considered human and therefore do not have the right to undergo assisted suicide by a third party. For that reason, a terminally ill patient may, therefore, as well be "dead already" and their desires must not be considered in the case of autonomy.

Although this sounds immoral, it has some sense in it. If the patient who decides euthanasia in an autonomy right not to live, there are many reasons to doubt if one has the insight or awareness to act freely. Patients are free to decide on ending their lives only if suffering from a terminal illness. Certainly it is one of the most important decisions anyone can face and personal, family, the medical and social context surrounding the patient is usually decisive.

Therefore, when the law protects human life of the terminally ill and

considers physical assisted suicide as a crime while ensuring the right to life, they argue that it wants to preserve the dignity and freedom, which otherwise can act conditioned. In short, pain and suffering disrupt the person so that the innate inclination to preserve one's life is betrayed.

Before we can completely understand and interpret the concept of assisted suicide and autonomy, it is necessary to make certain clarifications (Paris 11). To begin with, patients do not necessarily have to be in terminal situations to undergo assisted suicide, but in cases where a subject believes that life generates as much harm than good, there then a doctor may step in and discuss the future of that patient in relation to life.

Consequently, a medical professional is said to have a responsibility to legitimacy to inflict pain to a patient and make an attempt to stop the patient’s suffering. Also, the notion of “terminal illness” is a very broad and confusing perception. In addition to this, it is important to note that the situation could be critical if the autonomy of the patient is rather exhausted and that he or she is incapable of enjoying core competencies. So how does the society view the physician assisted suicide and is the practice it justified?

For obvious reasons, the practice of physician assisted suicide raises serious consequence ethical, legal and philosophical issues in the society. While the debate continues in mode, the final question that the society has is very simple: Does a person have the right to take his own life? Different societies have different ways of seeing things. This may be because of difference in beliefs, religious conviction and

ways of life.

Any response is an accelerator for future debate on the limits of the right to take a life. However, implicit in that question is a deeply thought out and debatable point. What is the definition of the word “right” according to different societies? Seeking consensus for that definition seems virtually impossible. Furthermore, although the question is deeply philosophical, every one of the answers are absolutely personal. In other words, they are not ethicists or philosophers who must answer the question, but each affected human being who is faced with the decision to live or die.

This leads to a second, more practical issue. Can a person end his own life? Ultimately, a majority of societies have embraced the practice. In the United States of America, several individual states have legalized it. Therefore, the answer to this is “yes” (even when you need someone to help carry out the act). Therefore, the society is justified to carry out these activities but there are obvious differences in how different people view it. If a person is entitled or not to take his own life it requires a unique personal response, and if you can, in fact, take his own life, leads us to a third very important philosophical question. Should a person end his life? Again, each answer is individual.

In all these cases, the patient quickly expressed their pain and suffering are such that it is not worth resisting. This is often used as a justification for the decision to end their lives. It is valid? At first glance it seems so. However, this level of analysis and understanding is two-dimensional, to the extent that only

recognizes the physical and mental realms, reducing the person to the most primitive level of existence. If one restricts evaluation reductionist staying at such level, it greatly impairs the patient. In contrast, speech therapy holds that humans are beings of three dimensions, which are not only physical and mental dimension, but what really makes them human is its spiritual dimension.

In addition, logotherapy always says that life has meaning, even to the last moment. From the perspective of logotherapy, the decision to take his own life is unnatural, unethical and contrary to the meaning of life. That is, the meaning of life is intertwined with the awareness and use of spirituality inherent in every human being. More specifically, being able to change the attitude when facing adversity saying “yes” to life, the person is exercising the defiant power of the spirit. If someone says "no" to life choosing assisted suicide, he has suppressed his spirituality allowing the physical and psychological conditions control instead of it controlling them. As the spirituality of each always exists, the challenges that life presents you give the person a great opportunity to grow and emerge triumphant.

In the case of a person facing a terrible problem and that is contemplating assisted suicide, it is only logical that the most likely way to find meaning for them either through attitudinal values. At this point, these patients are more concerned about their condition and their side effects. What remains as the best chance to make sense of his life is to help them to change their attitude to suffering through a positive stance. Making can derive a sense of purpose, dignity and integrity, coasting

their dilemma and exercising control over it.

It is fair to say that almost every person, when confronted with the news of a chronic terminal illness, permanent or be shocked, confused, angry, and probably lose a rational course of action. It is understandable that need time to "absorb" the tragic news. Then it becomes obvious that an integral part of treatment should be a therapy. The immediate goal is to assist the person to start the process of adjustment to such devastating news. Then, at some point, the therapy will focus on training the person to explore the options you have (especially positive, growth-oriented) and hope you decide for life.

On the other hand, there are societies which have refused to acknowledge physician assisted practice. These groups of people argue against physician-assisted suicide mentioning that the right to life is inviolable regardless of the conditions of this life or the will of the individual. Those who argue in favor of physician-assisted suicide assert that the right to freedom is inviolable and includes having one’s life.

Its supporters are no longer a small minority but a large and influential group of academics, philosophers, doctors and legislators. It is no surprise that the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is one of the most profound and pressing matters facing philosophers, patients and their families, health professionals, members of society and legislators. The debate has so far been full of both rhetoric and reasoning as expressed by author John Keown. In this book, he enriches the audience and places the reader in the main theological, clinical, ethical and legal aspects of the theme (101).

Trials have authority includes, as are the work of some

of the leading experts in the world; keep balance, they reflect divergent views (as a vigorous debate among philosophers) and, above all, are accessible to the lay reader. This compilation, impartial and erudite, tries to enlighten all who wish to be better informed about the controversy surrounding this important topic.

The option of physician-assisted suicide, which opens for terminally ill adults who have no hope of healing and are subjected to intense suffering or situations that violate their human dignity, is necessary because despite enormous advances in modern medicine, there are still a small group of patients in these circumstances, with devastating consequences for the patient and his family.

The bill establishes the conditions under which a patient can ask your physician the application of euthanasia (Keown 107). They may seem excessive steps are planned, but in such a difficult and sensitive issue not spare the forecasts that have been taken, as long as they do not constitute a barrier to prevent the right of patients to access this option. Also, they have doubts whether it is fair to exclude minors.

The existence of this option is just that, because in no way euthanasia becomes mandatory, as some have tried to do so believe. On the contrary, patients who are in that situation will be free to use because the right to autonomy allows them to freely make decisions regarding their health, disease and naturally with the end of his life (Keown 132). The project also clearly recognizes the autonomy of the physician as a person and as a professional, warning that any doctor may be forced to euthanize or to provide the necessary assistance for that purpose.

The

doctor can invoke conscientious objection, if any, or their professional autonomy, if in its judgment the procedure is not indicated. It is interesting that the project devotes a chapter to the issue of palliative care, ordering the EPS, or his substitute; ensure the provision of palliative care to terminally ill patients.

In good time, this topic is included in view of the frequency with which some entities impede patient access to this service. The progress of medicine in this field are very important in areas such as pain management, management of anxiety, depression and suffering and, in general, provide greater well-being in these difficult circumstances. There is no doubt that with better palliative care will be fewer patients who choose euthanasia.

Hopefully, the progress of medicine continue to arrive when no one has to consider the option of physician-assisted suicide, but as it happens, is very good that in our country the autonomy of patients, professionals of recognized medicine and general citizens concerning decisions related to their health. Other arguments against physician-assisted suicide are social mistrust that could produce their legal application in hospitals, the possible extension of this mentally disabled, elderly or disabled severely disabled.

Other arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide are: that it leads to death in a dignified manner (without pain and in conditions not artificially prolonged, which sometimes leads to death in an unfortunate and unworthy state), compassion for the suffering and end their suffering. However, in the course of being in conditions where a person cannot decide about his or her health care, because of his or her physical and mental state, this person should not be given the right to autonomy.

Organ transplants can be carried out and given to other people who need them. This would be better as compared to ending the life of the person simply because of autonomy.

Having discussed the principles of autonomy and criterialism, we are forced to verify if there is a morally important comparison between committing murder and letting a person die and between active and passive physician-assisted suicide. They have been several reasons why it is not good to let anyone die if he or she is incompetent and does not have the ability to make decisions. It has been argued that this distinction between 'make it happen' and 'letting it happen' is morally important because it sets limits on the duty and responsibility to save the lives of an agent. Therefore, I believe that criterialists view that an incompetent patient should not enjoy the right to autonomy as absurd. Life should always be considered sacred, and I believe that a person is dead until his medically proven to be dead.

Therefore, incompetent patients or those who are under life support are still living beings and should be treated in a similar manner. This, therefore, means that they enjoy the right of autonomy. While it requires very little effort to avoid taking away the life of someone, usually it also requires a significant amount of effort to save a dying patient.

If committing murder and letting a person die were ethically the same, the argument would be as responsible for the death of those we save and the death of those killed and stop helping Africans who are starving would be morally equivalent to send poisoned food. Also, this is,

according to this argument, absurd. Therefore, I believe that killing a person is just as bad as than letting a person die on a hospital bed.