The Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Suicide

The foundations of the ethical and moral arguments found in discourse over individual rights battles can be traced back to the modern founders of these principals. In today’s society, physician-assisted suicide garners great concern over morality and ethics within Western medicine. Medical advances now have the ability to extend life or even keep the patient’s body alive even when the brain is essentially dead. In recent years, an increased emphasis on respect toward patient autonomy begs whether or not there is solid reason to decline physician-assisted suicide. For many, physician-assisted suicide may be the rational choice for a dying person choosing to escape unbearable suffering at the end of life. Furthermore, the physician’s duty to

There is also the case where the person may be a caretaker of a family or prominent leader in a society, and the death of this person would make all those worse off below him. The idea of physician-assisted suicide does not feature Bentham’s defined autonomy as well as his rejection of the notion of rights. Based on Bentham’s beliefs, he would most likely argue physician-assisted suicide would be bad for society because one makes use of his own autonomy to put an end to that very autonomy. Ultimately, if physician-assisted suicide does not result in the greatest happiness for everyone it would have no place in Bentham’s society. As Bentham’s belief are grounded in the concept of maximizing utility for the greatest number of people, John Locke is cited for philosophizing on the meaning of identity and the self and much of our conception of these ideas stems from his thought. For Locke, human ownership is defined as property possessed by individuals in their own persons. His claim, in favor of the right to self-determination, is the concept of property ownership. If one has the right of dominion over one’s property, including disposal and destruction, then it is not unreasonable to assume the right of dominion can then be extended to cover body parts and ultimately

Even if a policy-based argument for why our lives are not our own, if granting the state absolute and arbitrary power to kill was part of the contract, one would wonder why individuals would leave the state of nature. This scenario is equivalent to the uncertainty of living in a state at war, as many of your rights may be guaranteed, yet none of these guarantees are being enforced. Belief about suicide is hardly central to Locke’s theory of social contract, leaving his theory of property to be interpreted. An argument can be made that the general right to do as one wishes with their property implies that one has a right, in principle, to destroy one’s own life. What was once regarded as God’s prerogative – the power to destroy life – is now deemed a prerogative right vested in the sovereign ownership of the individual. Because suicide is already an accepted option in society, one can raise the question of why physician-assisted suicide cannot be legitimized based on these same beliefs of property. Although John Locke’s view of morality is different than the morality citizens hold today, all agree taking a person’s property without that person’s