1772392 Physician assisted suicide is a hotly debated topic in modern American society. For some, the idea that engaging in physician assisted suicide is one of the most profound ways in which a person can exercise their autonomy. California, Oregon, and Washington have passed legislation that legalizes physician suicide, since the majority of in these states subscribes to this line of reasoning. However, many others believe that if you choose to use physician assisted suicide, the act itself destroys the person’s agency and autonomous choice. One such proponent is John P. Safranek, and he outlines his reasoning in his article titled Autonomy and Assisted Suicide The Execution of Freedom. In this paper, I will summarize the argument that
…show more content…
Safranek states that there are many proponents of ascriptive autonomy being a legitimate argument in favor of physician assisted suicide. However, he states that engaging in physician assisted suicide destroys the autonomous agent, and destroys the idea that they are acting in an autonomous manner. Safranek would say from the viewpoint of care ethics, that the doctor has the duty to cultivate certain feelings such as respect, and benevolence between themselves and the patient. These feelings are essential to carrying out the duty to meet the obligations that the doctor has with the patient, that is, the obligations to truly respect autonomy. Safranek wonders, how can a physician who supposedly feels the need to respect a person’s ascribed right to life then partake in physician assisted suicide. Safranek argues that if a doctor is to respect a patient’s agency, then they ought not to engage in physician assisted suicide, and that a patient cannot renounce their right to autonomy via physician assisted suicide without showing disrespect towards the inherent good of their own autonomy. Not only this, the act of destroying the autonomous agent through physician assisted suicide is also destroying the very autonomy that the agent is exercising. After all, the second part of the Kantian categorical imperative is …show more content…
Furthermore, the descriptive form of autonomy states that a person is acting in an autonomous nature when things do not constrain them such as laws or mandatory treatments, and they have the ability to make decisions for themselves (Tate, 6/20). Safranek wants to say that while a person does have descriptive autonomy and they act in such a way, this does not mean that the autonomous action is morally justified, and therefore just having autonomy is not a good thing on its own merits. This line of reasoning is a non-sequitur on Safranek’s part. A utilitarian would say that a terminally ill patient would have their utility (as well as the family’s utility) maximized with physician assisted suicide. This is because engaging in physician assisted suicide would reduce human suffering, save money, and allow the patient to die with dignity instead of writhing in pain until the end. Surely, these benefits derived from an autonomous act are good in and of themselves because it respects the individual’s choice to exercise autonomy. Since utility is maximized, physician assisted suicide is morally justifiable according to a utilitarian. It follows that a rule utilitarian would also buy into this line of reasoning, since physician assisted suicide is right if it follows moral rules, and those moral rules are right if they
Safranek states that there are many proponents of ascriptive autonomy being a legitimate argument in favor of physician assisted suicide. However, he states that engaging in physician assisted suicide destroys the autonomous agent, and destroys the idea that they are acting in an autonomous manner. Safranek would say from the viewpoint of care ethics, that the doctor has the duty to cultivate certain feelings such as respect, and benevolence between themselves and the patient. These feelings are essential to carrying out the duty to meet the obligations that the doctor has with the patient, that is, the obligations to truly respect autonomy. Safranek wonders, how can a physician who supposedly feels the need to respect a person’s ascribed right to life then partake in physician assisted suicide. Safranek argues that if a doctor is to respect a patient’s agency, then they ought not to engage in physician assisted suicide, and that a patient cannot renounce their right to autonomy via physician assisted suicide without showing disrespect towards the inherent good of their own autonomy. Not only this, the act of destroying the autonomous agent through physician assisted suicide is also destroying the very autonomy that the agent is exercising. After all, the second part of the Kantian categorical imperative is …show more content…
Furthermore, the descriptive form of autonomy states that a person is acting in an autonomous nature when things do not constrain them such as laws or mandatory treatments, and they have the ability to make decisions for themselves (Tate, 6/20). Safranek wants to say that while a person does have descriptive autonomy and they act in such a way, this does not mean that the autonomous action is morally justified, and therefore just having autonomy is not a good thing on its own merits. This line of reasoning is a non-sequitur on Safranek’s part. A utilitarian would say that a terminally ill patient would have their utility (as well as the family’s utility) maximized with physician assisted suicide. This is because engaging in physician assisted suicide would reduce human suffering, save money, and allow the patient to die with dignity instead of writhing in pain until the end. Surely, these benefits derived from an autonomous act are good in and of themselves because it respects the individual’s choice to exercise autonomy. Since utility is maximized, physician assisted suicide is morally justifiable according to a utilitarian. It follows that a rule utilitarian would also buy into this line of reasoning, since physician assisted suicide is right if it follows moral rules, and those moral rules are right if they