This dialogue is between two friends and fellow students. Victor’s religious views are against the idea of physician assisted suicide; whereas Dawn supports the idea of having the option. Victor presents many moral opinions that Dawn opposes in favor of her own views.
Victor: Dawn, have you been informed that California has legalized physician-assisted suicide2? It is absurd!
Dawn: Actually, I am aware, and I am proud to be in the fifth state to legalize physician-assisted suicide3. It is about time, hopefully more states will soon follow.
Victor: How can you say that? You must understand the immoralities-
Dawn: It seems quiet rudimentary and straightforward to me. How can relieving someone from suffering further in any way seem …show more content…
Whereas in active or passive euthanasia, the doctor or physician either takes some sort of action to end a patient’s life, including simply withholding or withdrawing the treatment need to sustain life and allowing the patient to die1.
Victor: I am having difficulty how they differ ethically.
Dawn: To simplify, in physician assisted suicide, the patient dies on their own terms, but in euthanasia there are some moral questions regarding whether that person wanted to die.
Victor: I believe those moral questions still regard death in general, suicide and assisting suicide are objectively morally wrong because they are choices contrary to the intrinsic good of an innocent human person.
Dawn: You need to think of the cause of the suicide, not just the outcome.
Victor: I think I read somewhere that “human life is not something we have; rather, one’s life is identical with one’s concrete reality, that is, identical with oneself. So, a choice to kill a human being, even for a good end, such as to prevent suffering, is contrary to the love and appreciation for the person themselves”4. Assisted suicide makes it much too easy for anyone in pain to simply end their …show more content…
To illustrate, if a patient is still alive and breathing, but suffering without any hope of happiness, many believe that their life wouldn’t be worth living. For instance, if a person does not have much longer to live or when a loss of autonomy is taken to the extreme and can no longer breathe without a machine, the ill patients may prefer to leave this world with dignity and without suffering. In the eyes of a former emergency room physician John Kitzhaber, the answer to the physician assisted suicide controversy is straightforward: “I believe an individual should have control, should be able to make choices about the end of their life. . . . As a physician, I can tell you that there 's a clear difference between prolonging someone 's life and prolonging their death,”6. Following the logic that each person has the right to control what happens to his or her body and his or her life, why doesn’t this carry over to the right to control when one
Victor: Dawn, have you been informed that California has legalized physician-assisted suicide2? It is absurd!
Dawn: Actually, I am aware, and I am proud to be in the fifth state to legalize physician-assisted suicide3. It is about time, hopefully more states will soon follow.
Victor: How can you say that? You must understand the immoralities-
Dawn: It seems quiet rudimentary and straightforward to me. How can relieving someone from suffering further in any way seem …show more content…
Whereas in active or passive euthanasia, the doctor or physician either takes some sort of action to end a patient’s life, including simply withholding or withdrawing the treatment need to sustain life and allowing the patient to die1.
Victor: I am having difficulty how they differ ethically.
Dawn: To simplify, in physician assisted suicide, the patient dies on their own terms, but in euthanasia there are some moral questions regarding whether that person wanted to die.
Victor: I believe those moral questions still regard death in general, suicide and assisting suicide are objectively morally wrong because they are choices contrary to the intrinsic good of an innocent human person.
Dawn: You need to think of the cause of the suicide, not just the outcome.
Victor: I think I read somewhere that “human life is not something we have; rather, one’s life is identical with one’s concrete reality, that is, identical with oneself. So, a choice to kill a human being, even for a good end, such as to prevent suffering, is contrary to the love and appreciation for the person themselves”4. Assisted suicide makes it much too easy for anyone in pain to simply end their …show more content…
To illustrate, if a patient is still alive and breathing, but suffering without any hope of happiness, many believe that their life wouldn’t be worth living. For instance, if a person does not have much longer to live or when a loss of autonomy is taken to the extreme and can no longer breathe without a machine, the ill patients may prefer to leave this world with dignity and without suffering. In the eyes of a former emergency room physician John Kitzhaber, the answer to the physician assisted suicide controversy is straightforward: “I believe an individual should have control, should be able to make choices about the end of their life. . . . As a physician, I can tell you that there 's a clear difference between prolonging someone 's life and prolonging their death,”6. Following the logic that each person has the right to control what happens to his or her body and his or her life, why doesn’t this carry over to the right to control when one