“Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making” by Dr. Timothy Quill is an account about the death of one of his patients, a woman named Diane. Diane had struggled with depression and alcoholism, and earlier in life, cancer: now in a better position in life, she was struck with the news that she had acute myelomonocytic leukemia. Upon hearing that her chances of survival, with long-term treatment would only be 25 percent, she chose to forgo chemotherapy and to live whatever time she had left outside of the hospital. Diane was convinced that she would die during treatment and would suffer immensely in the process. She was also a strong believer in the importance of maintaining her dignity. It was clear to Dr. Quill that Diane’s
…show more content…
Arras critiques the rights-based approach to ethics. “If our liberty is to mean anything…it must encompass the right to take risks, including the right to shoot heroin, smoke crack cocaine, and take any other labeled drug, so as long as an individual freely chooses to do so. This approach to libertarianism ignores social consequences and focuses only on individual rights.”3 Arras emphasizes that as long as an individual has made a voluntary decision to do drugs, their action of doing drugs cannot be deemed immoral. Arras’ goes on to explain that an individual’s use of drugs has dire effects on the people around them. Drug addiction contributes to child abuse and neglect because addicts make notoriously poor parents. In addition, drug abuse by a pregnant women is connected with dramatic increases in infant mortality and HIV-positive infants. This brings up the question, “is having a right the same as doing the right thing”? Undoubtedly, the answer is no. However, in the case of physician-assisted suicide, there are no apparent social consequences for the actions of the patient. In Dr. Quill’s account, Diane’s decision to end her suffering did not contribute to any negative social consequences. As Arras demonstrates in the case above, there are crucial flaws with adopting an entirely rights-based society. Nevertheless, a rights-based approach provides a unique perspective in favor of physician-assisted death. The Utilitarian …show more content…
If a person wanted to die, and most of the family members agreed, the action of suicide would be deemed as moral. The unnecessary suffering of a patient is unethical because it does not result in the greatest amount of happiness.
Diane’s primary reason for committing suicide was to avoid dying an otherwise painful death. If Diane sought treatment for the cancer, she would endure induction therapy, which would include three weeks in the hospital, probably infectious complications and hair loss. This treatment would be followed with consolidation chemotherapy with similar side effects. After months of treatment, Diane would only have a twenty-five percent chance of survival. Despite Dr. Quill’s best effort to minimize suffering, he knew he could not end the pain and anguish she would
Arras critiques the rights-based approach to ethics. “If our liberty is to mean anything…it must encompass the right to take risks, including the right to shoot heroin, smoke crack cocaine, and take any other labeled drug, so as long as an individual freely chooses to do so. This approach to libertarianism ignores social consequences and focuses only on individual rights.”3 Arras emphasizes that as long as an individual has made a voluntary decision to do drugs, their action of doing drugs cannot be deemed immoral. Arras’ goes on to explain that an individual’s use of drugs has dire effects on the people around them. Drug addiction contributes to child abuse and neglect because addicts make notoriously poor parents. In addition, drug abuse by a pregnant women is connected with dramatic increases in infant mortality and HIV-positive infants. This brings up the question, “is having a right the same as doing the right thing”? Undoubtedly, the answer is no. However, in the case of physician-assisted suicide, there are no apparent social consequences for the actions of the patient. In Dr. Quill’s account, Diane’s decision to end her suffering did not contribute to any negative social consequences. As Arras demonstrates in the case above, there are crucial flaws with adopting an entirely rights-based society. Nevertheless, a rights-based approach provides a unique perspective in favor of physician-assisted death. The Utilitarian …show more content…
If a person wanted to die, and most of the family members agreed, the action of suicide would be deemed as moral. The unnecessary suffering of a patient is unethical because it does not result in the greatest amount of happiness.
Diane’s primary reason for committing suicide was to avoid dying an otherwise painful death. If Diane sought treatment for the cancer, she would endure induction therapy, which would include three weeks in the hospital, probably infectious complications and hair loss. This treatment would be followed with consolidation chemotherapy with similar side effects. After months of treatment, Diane would only have a twenty-five percent chance of survival. Despite Dr. Quill’s best effort to minimize suffering, he knew he could not end the pain and anguish she would