Argument From Autonomy
Individuals must be allowed to make those decisions which have large impacts on themselves.
A person’s decision to follow her own convictions at the end of life is one of these decisions.
A Doctor may facilitate the autonomy of a mentally stable patient if they believe they are acting in the patient’s best interest.
Sometimes the patient and Physician agree that suicide is in the patient’s best interest.
Thus Physician-Assisted Suicide is morally permissible.
Objections:
The argument from autonomy is self-defeating. Richard Doerflinger claims that life is a prerequisite for autonomy. He says that, “On this view suicide is not the ultimate exercise of freedom but its ultimate self-contradiction: A free act that by destroying life destroys all the individual’s future earthly freedom.”
…show more content…
Counter Objections:
Assistance in suicide is only being offered to those who can no longer meaningfully exercise other freedoms due to increased suffering and reduced capabilities and lifespan.
Physician-Assisted suicide is not the deliberate destruction of life. The patient’s life is already being destroyed PAS is merely hastening its destruction. Physical terminal pain, and the fact that a person’s life is already in the process of being destroyed, can be measured and a prognosis given with relative accuracy. Emotional pain cannot be quantified or a prognosis given.
The Argument From Mercy
No person should have to endure pointless, unremitting physical suffering.
The relief of suffering is an integral part of the scope of the Medical Profession.
In certain cases death is the only way acceptable to the patient to relieve such suffering.
Then in order to relieve pain a Physician may facilitate the patient to bring about their own death.
Thus PAS is morally acceptable.