More handpicked essays just for you.
A short para about palliative care
Literature review on palliative care
Principles of palliative and end of life care essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
If this same practice is put into use in the context of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, a line can be drawn to prevent undesirable consequences stemming from a philosophical
n this paper, I will argue that Dr. Ewing Cook’s actions were morally impermissible by showing that most of the reasons he used to justify his actions of hastening the death of Jannie Burgess are what we called the “slippery slope arguments”. First, I will provide a little context of what Dr. Cook had done to patient Jannie Burgess and the reasons he used to justify his actions. Next, I will defend my thesis by presenting some arguments against Dr. Cook’s reasons and actions, which will lead me to conclude that Dr. cook’s action were morally impermissible. Last but not least, I will address some possible objections to my position. First, let’s take a look at what had Dr. Cook done to patient Jannie Burgess and the arguments he used to justify
The principle of “acceleration of death” was applied in the English cause of Bodkin Adams (1957), and its approach could be adopted by Canadian courts. In Bodkin Adams, Mrs. Morrell’s death was inevitable and she was suffering severe amounts of pain. To relieve the pain, Dr. Adams administered a drug to Mrs. Morrell that ultimately killed her and Dr. Adams had been aware that there was a chance that the drug could kill Mrs. Morrell. Furthermore, Dr. Adams was not convicted of murder as his purpose was to relieve the pain. This distinction is crucial in determining if Rachel is guilty of a criminal offence.
In Culture of Death, Wesley J. Smith is very clear about his opinions on where the future of healthcare is headed. In my essay, I will be discussing Smiths’ statements regarding assisted suicide, euthanasia and removal of food and fluid and why he believes the government should put an end to legalizing these practices. I will also discuss the important cases of Annette Corriveau, Robert Latimer, and others. Wesley Smith is a bioethicist and human rights activist that advocates for the illegalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
To address the question of whether a morally relevant distinction exists between killing and letting die, Phillipa Foot considers the contrast between the agent of harm originating a fatal sequence and allowing a fatal sequence to occur. This is the basis for the objection presented in the Trolley Problem to which she attempts to offer a reply. In this paper, I will defend the Trolley Problem against Foot’s reply, arguing that switching the lever on the track is not just diverting a fatal sequence, but also initiating a new fatal sequence, and explain how this discredits Foot’s argument. Prior to discussing the Trolley Problem, Foot develops an argument in favor of a morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. She focuses
The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.
To understand the ongoing debate about active and passive euthanasia, we must first look into Rachel’s
In “Life and Death in Middle America,” Ann Pederson discusses controversial issues surrounding the rights to life and death and how these issues are informed by Christianity in multiple ways. The “ragged edge of life” where “medical science and religious beliefs intersect” (379) is marked by a myriad of complex situations, including but not limited to abortion and complicated issues of “playing God” in regards to keeping people alive who are on the verge of death (398). Precisely because the complex problems of life and death are not easily solved by the realm of science, it is at these crucial moments that a person’s religion can serve to inform them on the choice that is best for them. However, these choices are still highly individualistic, and the doctrine of any specific church alone is often not enough to give uniform answers.
Death Systems are the attitudes and practices societies set in place in order to provide structure and allow societies to distance from death (Corr 71). The elements of a Death Sys-tem are the people who work or are otherwise in a role that relates to death and dying, and objects such as caskets, tombstones, urns, etc., that are known to be linked with death. Some objects and phrases like skull and crossbones, crows, and “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust…” are also used to symbolize death. Funeral homes, cemeteries, Day of the Dead, Memorial Day, Halloween, etc. are all places and occasions that are closely related to death. The Death Sys-tem has many functions; it isn’t in place just to ritualize death or to dispose of the dead; it was also put
The Doctrine of Doing & Allowing essentially outlines a lens that aids in drawing a distinction between doing something to cause the outcome, or allowing something that leads to an identical outcome. In this particular case, the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing aided the supreme court in rejecting the claim made by this case as a parallel can be found between a patient requesting assisted suicide through lethal medical treatment and a patient refusing to be put on a medical treatment such as life-support or some other form of treatment that the profession utilizes to prolong the process of death. (Vacco v. Quill, p. 423). J.J. Thomson’s concerns with the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing are quite complicated as he attempts to dig a bit deeper into the revised version that had been altered to incorporate both killing, allowing or letting die, “active euthanasia and passive euthanasia” (Thomson, pg. 500).
Conclusion I have argued that even though a physician killing an untreatable patient and a physician letting a patient die upon their request are both morally justifiable, the distinction between the two regarding the morality of physician assisted suicide is important because they are both justified differently. I have presented two counter arguments based on consequentialism, and argued that both of them untrue. A physician killing an untreatable patient upon their request and letting an untreatable patient die upon their request are both justifiable aspects of physician assisted suicide, and therefore it is not an important distinction to make regarding the moral permissibility of physician assisted suicide. However, it is an important
Though, in this paper, I have addressed several points that Dennis Plaisted has presented on why we should not legalize physician assisted suicide due to the issues with autonomy that convince the public that the state does not care enough to preserve the lives of those with less than six months to live. I argued that the limits of who and when an ill patient may be allowed to receive PAS are present for the state to relieve the pain of the ill who wish to have control over their death, and that it is only an alternative option for those patients. I considered a counterargument to my criticism, which argues that the state and doctors shouldn’t allow for PAS, as it gives the impression that the state does not care about the lives of the terminally ill. Just as well, the reputation of doctors as healers would be compromised if they supported this form of treatment. However, I explained that the quality of life is more valuable than forcing someone who is ill to suffer until their natural death.
Rachels looks at the utilitarian argument which states that if an action increases happiness or decreases unhappiness it is morally acceptable, therefore killing a suffering patients, who requests to die, decreases their unhappiness and can be morally acceptable However, Rachels doesn’t see this argument as sound because happiness and unhappiness are not the only things to consider morally. To argue this Rachels uses the example that limiting religion may increase happiness, but that doesn’t make is morally acceptable because it denies people the ability to make their own decisions. Rachel then goes to create his argument, which uses both a mercy and utilitarian approach. The mercy argument justifies euthanasia when it puts an end to a patient’s agony and suffering. Rachels uses an example of a twenty eight year old man named Jack who suffers from terminal cancer.
Diane expressed the desire “to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by (her) family” (BBC, 2002). She criticised the European court’s ruling against her case, and believed that this ruling
Life or Death Who chooses death over life? Sometimes we have to make this decision over a loved one when there is no hope for their recovery. It would be incredibly hard to make this life or death decision on another human being and twice as hard when it is someone we love. The author discusses the argument of this controversial topic of sustaining life at any cost or dying peacefully as an ethical issue. An ethicist, a person who specializes in or writes on ethics, can provide valuable discernment with respect to right and wrong motives or actions.
