The Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician assisted suicide and or euthanasia is a major ethical dilemma in both the medical and political atmospheres. With a multitude of arguments on both sides it can be hard to conclude for yourself exactly where to stand ethically when it comes to euthanasia. Moreover, it is important to think independently and separate your own personal beliefs from medical decisions. Secondly, it is essential to respect the choices people make for themselves or their loved ones. While physician assisted suicide goes against many people's beliefs, it is more important to protect someone's bodily autonomy (or, to put it more bluntly, freedom) than to cater to a particular value system that is not shared by everyone. Additionally, many patients with terminal

However, there has been differences in how different cultures view suicide. Throughout history the decision to die on one's own terms has been opposed for religious claims that one's body is not completely yours to own. Instead, it is owned by a higher power, in the case of Christianity the act of prematurely ending one’s life directly interferes with God's plan. This is also a huge argument in the opposition of physician assisted suicide, which we will discuss in detail later. On the other hand in early Japanese culture Samurai would choose to end their lives through seppuku, a form of suicide. Which was seen as honorable if done voluntarily, usually committed in order to not disobey their Daimyo (great lord). Whether or not a person if for or against physician assisted suicide depends greatly on their perspective on death. If an individual is Christan most likely they would be against physician assisted suicide because it directly goes against the word of God. But this raises the question; Should a person's religion or beliefs take away the rights of another person? Now pivoting back to the topic of physician assisted suicide, both of these examples demonstrate how religion and culture have a powerful impact on how a person in todays world forms their opinion on physician assisted suicide. One of the first activist of physician assisted suicide was Samuel Williams, using the term mercy killing.

The freedom of choice argument is nothing new in regards to controversial medical procedures, most notably appearing in the argument for abortion. Passive euthanasia, the active withholding of treatment, makes up approximately seventy percent of hospital deaths. There is an obvious difference between passive and active euthanasia as I mentioned above. However, an individual or their family are able to make the choice on whether to withhold treatment. The same goes for active euthanasia the individual or family should be allowed to have the choice to prematurely end their life. Which is described by Dimmock and Fisher, “People should have the right to make their own decisions and should be able to decide the paths of their own lives. If the right to choose our own path applies in life, then why would this not apply in respect of our choice of how and when to die?”(Dimmock, Fisher 130). Moreover, the ability to have control over one’s personal bodily autonomy is important, it allows an individual to make a choice that is in line with their values and beliefs. In preserving the right to a person's own bodily autonomy, as a society, in turn, we are showing acceptance for those who do not adhere to the same religious beliefs. As time goes on it is becoming increasingly important to separate religion from the government. In doing so we can protect