⌚ Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong
Lee, NEJM . Normative Ethics Normative Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong involves arriving at Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong standards that regulate right and wrong A Literary Analysis Of William Faulkners Barn Burning. Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide should be Legalized This reference source gives us an overview of why euthanasia Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong be Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong. House of Lords Hearings. Hendin The Sopranos By Steven Johnson Summary Klerman assert that for society to authorize assisted suicide would in effect endorse "the view of those who are depressed and suicidal that death is the preferred solution to the problems of illness, age, and depression. Person A committed an act of euthanasia if Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong only if 1 A killed B or let her die; 2 A intended to kill B; 3 the intention specified in 2 was at least partial cause of the action specified in 1 ; Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong the causal journey from the intention specified Should The Constitution Limit Our Freedoms? 2 to Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong action specified in 1 is more or less in accordance Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong A's plan of action; 5 A's killing of B is a voluntary action; 6 the motive for the action specified in 1the motive Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong behind the intention Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong in 2is the good of the person killed. You can put someone in therapy for their illness but not jail. Archived from the Racial Preferences In Speed Dating on 21 August The manual recommends that physicians respond to patient requests for euthanasia or assisted ethics in sales and marketing Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong seeking to ascertain and Egoism Vs Altruism to the patient's concerns.
Legalising Assisted Suicide? - Medical Ethics and Law
Dying patients who see their lives being destroyed by illness sometimes come to view death as the only way to escape their suffering, and therefore view it as a means of self-preservation — the opposite of suicide. The states where it has become legalized now call it physician-assisted death or physician aid-in-dying. The public remains deeply divided on the question of whether to legally permit PAD. In most surveys, approximately two-thirds of the U. This split reflects the inherent tensions in the debate. On the one hand, many people know of cases of severe suffering, even with excellent palliative care, where the need for some predictable escape is most compelling.
On the other hand, there are fears that PAD could be used as a detour that avoids effective palliative care or as a way to eliminate the suffering of vulnerable patients by eliminating the sufferer. Palliative care—including excellent pain and symptom management, psychosocial support for patients and families, and assistance with difficult decision-making—should be part of the standard of care for all seriously ill patients. Many studies have demonstrated a significant gap between the potential of palliative treatments to relieve suffering and actual practice. If someone considers PAD, the first step should be for doctors to ensure that the patient is receiving optimal palliative treatment.
But even with the best possible palliative care and support there will likely be a small percentage of cases where symptoms become intractable despite skillful efforts to help. Furthermore, patient suffering cannot be restricted to the physical realm and must include psychological, social, existential, and spiritual dimensions. The medical profession acknowledges that such unacceptable suffering sometimes exists when physicians talk with patients about stopping life supports, but when there is no life support to stop, the medical profession may assume that both the patient and the physician have not tried hard enough with standard palliative measures.
In circumstances of intractable patient suffering, there is evidence that some physicians in the U. This is not easily studied because to acknowledge participation a physician must admit to a crime in most jurisdictions. Nonetheless, several imperfect studies of the practice in the U. The legal practice of PAD in the U. Data collected by the Oregon Health Department show that the practice has increased over that time from approximately 1 in 1, deaths to approximately 1 in deaths. About two-thirds of patients who receive a potentially lethal prescription die after taking it, while about one-third do not take their lethal prescription and die from other causes. Although PAD accounts for a relatively small percentage of deaths in Oregon, approximately 1 in 50 patients talk with their doctors about the option and 1 in 6 talk with their families about the possibility.
In the Netherlands, PAD and voluntary active euthanasia had been openly permitted for over 30 years before they were legalized in The practices have been the subject of several major studies, which have shown relatively stable rates of PAD 0. There has been much discussion about these cases. Advocates maintain that the patients were terminally ill, that they were experiencing intractable suffering, that they had lost capacity for decision-making, and that their physicians had responded appropriately to end their suffering. Critics suggest that these cases are clear evidence of the slippery slope of a practice out of control. Proponents and critics of PAD have different ethical reasons to support their positions.
The principal arguments in favor of legalization are:. Patient autonomy. A patient should have the right to control the circumstances of his or her own death, and to determine how much suffering is too much. Wrongness of killing. Purposefully helping a patient die is categorically wrong under any circumstances; excellent palliative care does not include PAD. Physician integrity. Physicians take a sacred oath never to knowingly harm a patient, and PAD would violate professional standards and undermine trust between physician and patient.
Risk of abuse slippery slope. Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human beings, such as to care for our children, and to not commit murder. Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are sometimes called deontological , from the Greek word deon , or duty, in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these principles are obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings. There are four central duty theories. The first is that championed by 17th century German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others.
Concerning our duties towards God, he argued that there are two kinds:. Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between absolute duties, which are universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which are the result of contracts between people. Absolute duties are of three sorts:. A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person implies the duties of another person. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties.
For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we deduce other more specific rights from these, including the rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression. There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights.
First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery. A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single principle of duty. However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties.
That is, we should always treat people with dignity, and never use them as mere instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to charity, for example, is morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent value of the recipient. By contrast, we treat someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve something else. The categorical imperative also regulates the morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant believes that the morality of all actions can be determined by appealing to this single principle of duty. A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.
Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two conflicting duties. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus not return the gun.
According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of these duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty and I should not return the gun. It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences of our actions. Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper.
Consequentialist theories are sometimes called teleological theories, from the Greek word telos , or end, since the end result of the action is the sole determining factor of its morality. Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18 th century by philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties.
In fact, the most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:. All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other. They also yield different conclusions. Consider the following example.
A woman was traveling through a developing country when she witnessed a car in front of her run off the road and roll over several times. She asked the hired driver to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise, the driver accelerated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the road the driver explained that in his country if someone assists an accident victim, then the police often hold the assisting person responsible for the accident itself.
If the victim dies, then the assisting person could be held responsible for the death. On the principle of ethical egoism , the woman in this illustration would only be concerned with the consequences of her attempted assistance as she would be affected. Clearly, the decision to drive on would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of ethical altruism, she would be concerned only with the consequences of her action as others are affected, particularly the accident victim. Tallying only those consequences reveals that assisting the victim would be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative consequences that result for her. On the principle of utilitarianism, she must consider the consequences for both herself and the victim.
The outcome here is less clear, and the woman would need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus disbenefit of her action. Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworty. First, Bentham proposed that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral.
Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects. First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the disbenefit. A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
The same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful.
For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism , which involves tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad and not simply as pleasurable or painful. Also, R. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism , which involves tallying any consequence that fulfills our preferences. We have seen in Section 1. Upon that foundation, Hobbes developed a normative theory known as social contract theory , which is a type of rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, for purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules. Our property, our families, and even our lives are at continual risk.
Selfishness alone will therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized community. Not surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions against lying, stealing and killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are enforced. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate these rules.
Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific, controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. In recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such as medical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics , and sexual ethics. The issue of drive-by shooting, for example, is not an applied ethical issue, since everyone agrees that this practice is grossly immoral. Incredibly, some proponents of assisted-suicide acknowledge this, and even promote this repercussion to advocate assisted suicide. Were we to decide that voluntary euthanasia is moral, and therefore should be permitted, we would change our thinking on this matter.
People would no longer be schooled to associate fear or guilt with a voluntary death. Employing an agent known to be lethal relates the physician to the patient in one of the ways that someone who commits a premeditated murder relates to the one who is killed, namely, as one who fatally injures them with lethal means. The restraint against using means incompatible with the life of another human being has to be overcome. This directly undermines the usual inhibitions against killing that generally govern the human relations. Even though it would be nice for a person to have the autonomy to determine the timing and manner of his or her death, this determination must be considered in light of the effect it could have on others.
This will certainly have an impact over the way these physicians, and those closest to them, view the importance of the preservation of life and how they treat other people, especially when faced with their own hardships and adversities. Also, as noted above, I do not believe that a terminally ill patient with less than six months to live and experiencing severe physical and mental deterioration can make an autonomous decision. For these reasons, I do not believe that the concept of autonomy results in the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. The second main argument for the legalization of assisted suicide is that people should be permitted to die with dignity. Family members, relatives, and friends should not have to witness the deterioration and suffering of a loved one.
Our last impressions of a loved one should be filled with joy and respect. Clearly the above argument is legitimate and rational. There are several significant flaws with the argument, however. First, the argument fails to address the issues of the sanctity of human life, and the various negative repercussions arising out of the legalization of assisted suicide, both of which will be discussed in detail later in this paper. Second, the argument that individuals wish to commit suicide because they are suffering from severe physical pain is not supported by the research and studies. Many terminally ill patients fear that as their condition progresses they will lose physical function, mental function, and independence. They will lose their sense of autonomy and their ability to enjoy life.
They fear being a burden to family, relatives, and friends. They do not wish for those closest to them to witness their physical and mental deterioration, and they do not wish to inconvenience them. They want the last memories of them to be fond memories. It is this sequence of thoughts that causes terminally ill patients to become depressed and experience a sense of hopelessness. It is these feelings that cause terminally ill patients to want a quick death. In fact, there is no significant association between the desire for a hastened death and the presence of pain or pain intensity.
Research shows that terminally ill patients suffering from depression are four times more likely to desire death than terminally ill patients not suffering from depression. Approximately twenty-five percent of terminally ill patients suffering from either depression or hopelessness have a high desire for a quick death. Sixty-seven percent of the terminally ill patients suffering from both depression and hopelessness have a high desire for a quick death. About fifty to sixty-seven percent of terminally ill patients interested in euthanasia or assisted suicide change their mind.
Thus, the real issue to be addressed is whether terminally ill patients should have the right to physician-assisted suicide when their desire for a hastened death is based on depression and hopelessness. For example, a terminally ill patient may desire assisted suicide because he fears that loved ones will have an unfavorable memory of him upon witnessing his deterioration. This may be a logical thought, as it is certainly true that some people who witness the deterioration and suffering of a loved one will be disturbed and troubled by the vision, and such vision could result in a negative memory of the loved one and also could cause psychological repercussions.
On the other hand, some people will be extremely disturbed by the thought that a family member, relative, or friend committed suicide. They will be haunted by the thought that they did not do enough to provide palliative care, compassion, understanding, and persuasion. Some people will find it extremely comforting to know they supported a loved one no matter how tough the situation became. There is no clear answer to this issue. Therefore, we should err on the side of life, and not make the process of dying as simple as a person taking a pill which results in a painless death within thirty minutes after consumption.
Moreover, we must remember that the question being addressed in this paper is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized, not whether a person has the right to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining procedures. If a patient does wish to die, after appropriate counseling and treatment, the patient has the legal right to have withdrawn or withheld life sustaining procedures such as nutrition and hydration , and receive pain medication and sedatives to make the process of dying more comfortable. When a terminally ill patient desires suicide because of the burden placed on others, the patient has a perception that the burden he causes to others is greater than the value of his own life.
Admittedly, the burden is not only the time being spent with the patient, but also the mental suffering of seeing a loved one die. If the patient has a misperception that he is a burden to his family, then it would be tragic for him to commit suicide under this misperception. If the patient is correct that his family, relatives, and friends do not wish to be burdened, do we as society really want to encourage this attitude? If we send this message to the terminally ill, then we are sending this message to all human beings who are unable to live independently. We are saying that humans who require assistance are a burden and are undignified. More importantly, does this burden justify sanctioning physician-assisted suicide when compared to the various negative repercussions associated with this act, which will be discussed more in depth later in the paper?
If we legalize assisted suicide, then we are providing terminally ill patients an option—continue with the dying process or receive assistance with a quick, painless death. Once a patient is provided this option, the patient may feel that he is being selfish if he does not agree to set a specific date and time to receive medication which results in a quick and painless death. If the agonized patient knows that he alone can cut short their mental suffering by consenting to, or perhaps suggesting euthanasia, he will find himself faced with a hideous dilemma: he must either be so selfish as to discard euthanasia and let his dear ones suffer, or, by being generous, he must bid farewell.
I submit that it would be immoral to assist someone to die simply because they are depressed or have a sense of hopelessness. It would be tragic for a person to commit suicide with these symptoms, especially when they are in a medical institution and can be probably treated. The answer to the treatment of terminally ill patients is not to encourage or permit assisted suicide, but instead for the government to fund research addressing terminally ill patient depression, hopelessness, and social support, including funding palliative care units and consultation services. Moreover, physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers need mandatory and standardized education and training in diagnosing and treating depression, and need to refer dying patients to hospice in the early stages of the dying process.
There should also be government funding for this type of care. We in society should promote research that encourages life, not death. Another argument advanced by proponents of assisted suicide is that the benefits of assisted suicide outweigh the costs. Supporters argue that assisted suicide allows terminally ill patients to avoid needless pain and misery in their final days; allows a patient to maintain control over the timing and manner of death; and promotes death with dignity. The costs, on the other hand, are that some individuals may feel pressured to terminate life because of a misperception of their diagnosis or prognosis; because of depression; or because of a concern for the burden they place on others and the depletion of assets.
Likewise, some individuals may be pressured to end life by selfish family members or caregivers. When weighing these consequences, proponents for assisted suicide argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that detailed legislation, education, and monitoring can help eliminate many of the potential negative repercussions. Additionally, advocates argue that the negative repercussions are speculative, whereas the positive repercussions are clear. Supporters contend that we should not penalize deserving terminally ill patients simply because we can imagine possible horrors. Proponents state that the burden should be on the opponents of assisted suicide to prove the costs outweigh the benefits. Per this philosophical model, morality is determined by a calculation of pleasure good versus pain evil.
An act is moral when compared to the alternatives it produces the most good and the least evil for the most people, with each person being treated equally in the calculation. The goal is to bring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, with the calculation being performed by an impartial government. Rights are created or abolished depending upon a utilitarian formula. Rights are not natural and self-evident. As argued later in this paper, I believe it is inappropriate to engage in a purely utilitarian analysis when addressing the issue of suicide.
I believe that life is sacred, and should never be judged by a calculation of pleasure versus pain. However, even pursuant to this type analysis, it is unclear whether assisted suicide should be legalized. It is an analysis regarding the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people. Thus, the issue is whether assisted suicide is better for society as a whole, not whether it is beneficial for a specific individual.
Proponents of assisted suicide argue that assisted suicide is best for society as a whole because it promotes autonomy and self-determination. In support of this statement some advocates reference public opinion polls that suggest the majority of people support the legalization of assisted suicide. However, a close analysis of the polling, and the results of elections on this issue, do not support the contention that the public favors physician-assisted suicide.
Public opinion polls regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia have been performed in this country since The number of persons surveyed, and the questions asked, have varied, but the results are somewhat consistent. In fact, in a survey conducted of terminally ill patients, sixty-eight percent of these patients did not approve of euthanasia unless a person was suffering from unremitting pain. Moreover, when the public has voted on assisted suicide, and has had time to reflect upon the issues and consequences, the public has virtually always rejected it. On November 7, , initiatives attempting to legalize assisted suicide failed in Maine by the margin of On November 3, , Michigan Proposal B, a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, failed by a margin of percent.
In , California Proposition , a measure that would have legalized voluntary active euthanasia and assisted suicide, was voted down by the margin of percent. The only assisted suicide initiative that has passed to date occurred in Oregon on November 8, , when Measure 16 passed by a margin of percent. Based on the foregoing, it is incorrect for proponents of physician-assisted suicide to contend that the American public supports it. In regard to the legalization of assisted suicide, there is really no way to know the overall consequences.
Determining the ultimate consequences of assisted suicide requires eternal knowledge. If we do not experience any perceived negative repercussions one year from the date of legalization, then how do we know that there will not be negative repercussions five years, ten years, or twenty years from now? There is simply no way for us to know the long-term consequences of legalizing assisted suicide. Our opinion is, and always will be, speculative. For example, what are the consequences of a doctor taking a human life? How does this affect the doctor personally? Does the doctor become callous to the concept of life and death such that it becomes easier, and less emotionally challenging, to take a human life?
Will patients continue to see physicians as an advocate for life? Does the legalization of assisted suicide send the message that suicide is acceptable and rational under certain circumstances, and thus, lead to an increase in suicide among persons of all age groups? Does assisted suicide expand to voluntary euthanasia? Does it expand to involuntary euthanasia? Does it expand to individuals who are not terminally ill? Admittedly one can always make an argument that the long-term consequences of an act or failure to act are unpredictable. Consequently, we can only do our best to make decisions based on the knowledge and input we are able to acquire.
I accept this as a legitimate argument. However, when we are dealing with an issue of life and death, we must be conservative and err on the side of life. The potential negative consequences are simply too great to justify the benefit that a few people may obtain. It must be remembered that it is estimated that less than three percent of the individuals who die each year will die from assisted suicide if it were nationally legalized.
Stated differently, if assisted suicide were legalized nationally, it is estimated that only. The potential benefit to such few people, in light of the potentially grave consequences, cannot justify the legalization of assisted suicide even pursuant to a utilitarian analysis. Some proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide reference the potential financial savings if euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized, and additionally reference that assisted suicide will lessen the depletion of family assets. Advocates of this position argue that there are approximately 2. More than seventy percent of the individuals who seek euthanasia or assisted suicide are cancer patients.
What is absolutely incredible to me is that someone would honestly argue that we should consider the cost savings to America by killing, or assisting in the suicide, of human beings. It seems almost unfathomable. The reason this figure is so low is because an extremely small percentage of Americans receiving health care would qualify for physician-assisted suicide. We are not talking about the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining procedures. This is already legal, and widely utilized. In fact, sixty-seven percent of the terminally ill patients who request assisted suicide are sixty-five years of age or older and are covered by Medicare. At the present time there are more than thirty-three million Americans sixty-five years of age or older.
This number will certainly increase in the future in light of the fact that life expectancies continue to rise. Thus, the legalization of assisted suicide will not have a significant impact on individual family savings. I submit that no one can legitimately argue that a national healthcare savings of less than one percent can justify the hastening of death.
While it is improper to analyze the legalization of physician-suicide from a dollar cost savings, even this analysis leads to the conclusion that assisted suicide should not be legalized. One of the main arguments opposing physician-assisted suicide is the sanctity of human life. God is the creator of life, and thus, only God has the right to take it. No human life is more or less sacred than any other. Individual autonomy is secondary to the sanctity of human life.
Some of these religions do recognize a persons right to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining procedures, as this allows life to follow its natural course as opposed to the active ingesting of a drug, the purpose of which is to immediately bring life to an end. Even if one does not accept the theological belief regarding the sanctity of human life, I suggest that we all should recognize the concept that something has to be sacred in human existence.
Something has to exist in which there is no analysis performed as to the benefits, costs, and perceived consequences. It is a statement that hardship, pain, suffering, and discontent have no purpose. It is a statement that God either does not exist or that God is indifferent to human suffering. I choose to believe that there is a higher meaning to our existence than simply the seeking of pleasure. Hardship, pain, suffering, and discontent are possibly meant to test our compassion and faith.
Only through sincere compassion and faith will we be able to live in a community where the concern for others is as important as the love of oneself. Self-love is not necessarily a bad thing because it does provide us insight into caring for others. It is not a community, but a group of self-centered individuals who merely choose to live among one another because they perceive this to provide them the most physical security and material benefits. Death is a time for us to reflect upon our life, and impartially analyze the mistakes we have made. It is a time to speak with family members we have ignored; and to express our love for people who we care about most, and especially those who may not know it.
It is a time to express to others the positive impact they had on our lives. It is a time for us to attempt to correct our errors, and most important, let those we have wronged know that we are sorry. It is a time for peace. Each month, week, day, minute, and second that we take away from this dying process especially the moments of most physical and mental torment , the less likely we will experience this need to make amends. One simple apology or expression of affection from a dying person to a family member, relative, or friend could have a life-altering impact on the survivor. I am certainly not trying to suggest that the issue of assisted suicide is the turning point in humanity and community, but I am suggesting that we as society must determine that something is absolutely sacred.
Otherwise, nothing is sacred. If nothing is sacred, then nothing has permanent importance.Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. Furthermore, patient suffering cannot Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong restricted to the physical Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong and must include psychological, social, existential, and spiritual Chris Mccandless In Into The Wild. The intention to deliberately help someone accelerate the death of an incurable patient, Slavery In The Play The Whipping Man By Matthew Lopez to stop his Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong her suffering has never been an easy task. In Samuel Williams, Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong schoolteacher, initiated the contemporary euthanasia debate through a speech given at the Birmingham Speculative Club in England, which was subsequently Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong in a one-off publication entitled Essays of the Ethical Issues In Erin Brockovich Speculative Clubthe Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong works of a Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong of members of an amateur philosophical society. In Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong, a law was created that Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong any form of assisted suicide. More than seventy percent of the individuals who seek euthanasia or assisted suicide are Isee Clinic Case Study patients. Washington's Symbolism Of Sin In Dantes Inferno and restrictions are similar, if not exactly the same, as Oregon's.