The Euthanasia debate in the health care system

Lawrence W.

Order the writing of a tailor-made Social, moral & civic education Term papers

Free quote online

Thesis Format .doc

The Euthanasia debate in the health care system

Download

Read an extract

Reader
Abstract
Contents
Extract

Abstract

This debate over the right to die has long been a contentious one, with the focus being on the right that a patient has to control their own body. The question that arises is whether or not life should be preserved at all costs. With regard to this question, there are two polarized opinions; one states that life should be preserved at all costs since life is sacred; while the other claims that the patient should have autonomy over decisions that affect their own body. The former is a viewpoint typically held by Christian theologians and Jewish thinkers, while the latter is more in line with prevalent liberal thinking. When euthanasia is referred to as death with dignity, liberals are referring to the timing of death, meaning that people should be able to choose the best time for their own passage, and the way in which death occurs, meaning that they should be able to control the process of dying.

The idea of autonomy refers to people's ability to make decisions for themselves based on their own beliefs and actions. However, for one to be able to have autonomy over their own body, they need to be given the option, and this is why the law needs to allow for physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Introduction
The idea of autonomy
The issue of Euthanasia
Problems associated with the sanctity of life argument
The public debate over Euthanasia
The Golden Rule Argument
Conclusion
Bibliography

Get this table of contents for free after login.

Extract

[...] Understandably the courts play a significant role in creating policy, and euthanasia should be no exception. As the issue becomes more prevalent in the public domain and as people demand more from the state, this issue might be revisited in the future.[16] This essay has shown that the debate over the right is a contentious one. With regard to this question, there are two polarized opinions, and they are unlikely to ever come together. However it has been shown that the sanctity of life argument does not have a moral ground to stand on, and euthanasia should be allowed as it is in line with the liberal notion of autonomy. [...]

[...] Clearly physician assisted suicide and euthanasia is the moral avenue to take.[7] Within the public debate over euthanasia, there have been few cases in Canada that brought the matter to the forefront more than the case of Robert Latimer and his daughter Tracy. In 1993 Robert Latimer attached a hose to the exhaust pipe of his truck and gassed his severely disabled daughter to death. He was accused of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994. This is a highly contentious case especially due to the way in which euthanasia was administered, but it speaks to the broader issue of euthanasia and when it is acceptable. [...]

[...] This just goes to show that the argument put forth by those who oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia do not have a strong argument as it ignores autonomy and can be developed in different ways that dismantle the strength of the argument.[6] The argument which supports the right of a patient to choose to end their own life is in line with the support-for-others argument. This argument finds its roots in the theories of Immanuel Kant, and argues that people are ends in themselves, and are not to be used only as means, thus a limit must be place on all arbitrary use of these beings, who are in effect, objects of respect. [...]

[...] Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. The Right to Die With Dignity. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press Lavery, J.V. & Singer, Peter. Supremes decide on assisted suicide: What should a doctor Canadian Medical Association Journal, 157: 1997. Pojman, Louis B. Life and Death Grappling with the Moral Dilemmas of Our Time. Toronto, ON: Wadsworth Publishing Company Raz, Joseph. The [...]

[...] The mere fact that we all have beating hearts is not a good enough reason to preserve life at all costs (life when one is suffering from a terminal disease).[4] Because we live in a liberal democratic society, and the issue of euthanasia is inherently one of human rights, we must abide by the liberal perspective of abortion. Preference needs to be given to the autonomy of the patient. The sanctity of life approach to euthanasia cannot be justified when it is place on patients that do not think of their current life situation as inherently valuable, and as such are willing to have thoughts about ending their own life. [...]

doc