In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the young prince of Denmark contemplates taking his life. In a soliloquy, he says “How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable/Seem to me all the uses of this world!” (1.2.133-134). Contrary to Hamlet’s situation, many in favor of physician assisted suicide argue that it should be limited to patients suffering from intractable physical pain; however, other advocates of euthanasia, think that an adequate justification for physician assisted death, which exceeds intolerable physical suffering, is available. According to a leading advocate of this view, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, euthanasia is ethical insofar that one who desires to take their life provide consent. He says, “It is the mores of society which should determine the ethics
…show more content…
This is a non-sequitur. Moreover, Hippocrates was against euthanasia, as were Plato and Aristotle. In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates remarks to his friend Cebes—before his execution—that a true philosopher ought to welcome death; however, suicide is unjustified. According to Socrates, although death is a blessing, one is not permitted to take their life, but must rather wait for it to be taken from them. We are the possessions of the gods, says Socrates, and have no right to harm ourselves (Phaedo …show more content…
Everyone brings faith commitments to the table. While it is true that religion has little to say about human anatomy or physiology, and modern medicine may have little to say about theology, it is reasonable to think that the paths of both these respected disciplines—at times—converge. It is difficult to think that one’s faith commitments or religious beliefs do not inform their ideas of euthanasia. The views held by advocates of physician assisted suicide often presuppose that persons do not have a nature which defines and makes them who they are. Knowledge of personhood is left to the individual or society to determine for themselves. Indeed, in Compassion in Dying vs. The State of Washington, the ninth circuit court of appeals asserted that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state” (169). A person’s conscience and religious beliefs will provide answers to relevant questions regarding patient rights, death, and suffering. Why ought patients have a right to die? Why is suffering a bad thing? Why should the medical profession adopt any position which advocates euthanasia? How can such an ideal be guided correctly and responsibly? To think that medicine
This is a non-sequitur. Moreover, Hippocrates was against euthanasia, as were Plato and Aristotle. In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates remarks to his friend Cebes—before his execution—that a true philosopher ought to welcome death; however, suicide is unjustified. According to Socrates, although death is a blessing, one is not permitted to take their life, but must rather wait for it to be taken from them. We are the possessions of the gods, says Socrates, and have no right to harm ourselves (Phaedo …show more content…
Everyone brings faith commitments to the table. While it is true that religion has little to say about human anatomy or physiology, and modern medicine may have little to say about theology, it is reasonable to think that the paths of both these respected disciplines—at times—converge. It is difficult to think that one’s faith commitments or religious beliefs do not inform their ideas of euthanasia. The views held by advocates of physician assisted suicide often presuppose that persons do not have a nature which defines and makes them who they are. Knowledge of personhood is left to the individual or society to determine for themselves. Indeed, in Compassion in Dying vs. The State of Washington, the ninth circuit court of appeals asserted that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state” (169). A person’s conscience and religious beliefs will provide answers to relevant questions regarding patient rights, death, and suffering. Why ought patients have a right to die? Why is suffering a bad thing? Why should the medical profession adopt any position which advocates euthanasia? How can such an ideal be guided correctly and responsibly? To think that medicine