We are living in a time when some doctors and lawmakers think the best solution in helping relieve patients suffering is giving them a deadly drug to kill them. Starting between the 17th and 19th century, laws have prohibited physician-assisted suicide. In 1828 the first U.S Statue outlawing physician-assisted suicide was put forth in New York. This issue has been addressed for well over 1000 years, and the majority has always been against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Today, in 2016, the conflict of physician-assisted suicide is still prevalent. In a world that is constantly evolving and, is overly dedicated to the individual rights of every person, is this battle just another instance of endless demands for more freedoms?
…show more content…
The Hippocratic Oath is one of the longest standing documents that is still used today. The original oath was drafted in late Fifth Century BCE. It requires new physicians to swear on many healing gods to uphold all ethical standards. However, over the last 1,000 plus years, the oath has been revised. Redrafted in 1964 the modern version states, “I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.” (Lasagna). Those who are pro-PAS deemed that the oath has been revised to accommodate today’s society. In general, it has been deemed antithetical to uphold an oath that was derived by Christian’s, Jews, and Muslims. It goes against the right to not be forced into a belief by any religious group or denomination. Hippocrates, who wrote the original oath, did not make any moral statement about whether PAS was right or wrong. In regards to the quoted “do no harm”, does doing “no harm” mean that life should be prolonged even if the patient is in pain and feels as if they are a burden. "The Hippocratic Oath is not the only time-honored school of ethical and moral thought to be discarded because of inflexibility. Rules stated as always or never are sooner or later discredited by failure to withstand the 'Yes but, what if...? ' questions.” (Thompson). However, while the opposition makes excellent …show more content…
The legalization of physician-assisted suicide would without a doubt become a slippery slope for far worse problems such as the killing of patients without consent and the abuse of the drug. Those who are pro-PAS seem to feel the “slippery slope” theory as the worse argument of all. “To be forced to continue living a life that one deems intolerable when there are doctors who are willing either to end one’s life or to assist one in ending one’s own life is an unspeakable violation of an individual’s freedom to live-and to die- as he or she sees fit.” (Benatar). It is said that this “slippery slope” theory is a scare tactic and abuse will always occur in all different forms. Law’s simply can’t be denied because of potential risks. The basis in which this law has been denied over the years is a hidden assumption of what might happen. Dr. Benatar says “that the consequence would not be a noxious slippery slope.”(Benatar). Meaning the consequence would not prove hazardous to human life. However, the opposition makes many errors in their defense. It was said that abuse will always occur, that is not a defense to pass a law. Doing so would perpetuate a cycle that is tragic. It has become human nature to push the envelope. The old expression “give a mouse a crumb and he wants the whole cookies”, it’s derived from history. A history of a society that is known for taking things too far. Take the current prescription pill epidemic the nation
The Hippocratic Oath is one of the longest standing documents that is still used today. The original oath was drafted in late Fifth Century BCE. It requires new physicians to swear on many healing gods to uphold all ethical standards. However, over the last 1,000 plus years, the oath has been revised. Redrafted in 1964 the modern version states, “I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.” (Lasagna). Those who are pro-PAS deemed that the oath has been revised to accommodate today’s society. In general, it has been deemed antithetical to uphold an oath that was derived by Christian’s, Jews, and Muslims. It goes against the right to not be forced into a belief by any religious group or denomination. Hippocrates, who wrote the original oath, did not make any moral statement about whether PAS was right or wrong. In regards to the quoted “do no harm”, does doing “no harm” mean that life should be prolonged even if the patient is in pain and feels as if they are a burden. "The Hippocratic Oath is not the only time-honored school of ethical and moral thought to be discarded because of inflexibility. Rules stated as always or never are sooner or later discredited by failure to withstand the 'Yes but, what if...? ' questions.” (Thompson). However, while the opposition makes excellent …show more content…
The legalization of physician-assisted suicide would without a doubt become a slippery slope for far worse problems such as the killing of patients without consent and the abuse of the drug. Those who are pro-PAS seem to feel the “slippery slope” theory as the worse argument of all. “To be forced to continue living a life that one deems intolerable when there are doctors who are willing either to end one’s life or to assist one in ending one’s own life is an unspeakable violation of an individual’s freedom to live-and to die- as he or she sees fit.” (Benatar). It is said that this “slippery slope” theory is a scare tactic and abuse will always occur in all different forms. Law’s simply can’t be denied because of potential risks. The basis in which this law has been denied over the years is a hidden assumption of what might happen. Dr. Benatar says “that the consequence would not be a noxious slippery slope.”(Benatar). Meaning the consequence would not prove hazardous to human life. However, the opposition makes many errors in their defense. It was said that abuse will always occur, that is not a defense to pass a law. Doing so would perpetuate a cycle that is tragic. It has become human nature to push the envelope. The old expression “give a mouse a crumb and he wants the whole cookies”, it’s derived from history. A history of a society that is known for taking things too far. Take the current prescription pill epidemic the nation