Should People who are Terminally Ill be allowed to End their Lives?
Time has passed, when there were not enough inventions and technologies to sustain life. In this era, new medical inventions prolong lives, and it has made it possible for humans to live longer, than when there were no remedies to support life. People can live comfortably with terminal illness throughout their lifetime. From observations, People in developed countries such as United States, Canada, England, can live with terminal illness longer than countries in Africa such as Liberia, Nigeria, Somalia, and Sudan. The disparities in the two continents are incomparable, hence, the former have more economic power and advance technologies than the latter. Death is a natural phenomena that should be allowed to happen when the clock stop ticking. Therefore, many people have opposed the end of life for terminally ill patients. The advanced medical technology is widening the gap between life and death of terminally ill, in that the patient can be kept alive and …show more content…
In his book of social philosophy, he opposed the view of suicide for terminally ill patients. He said that suicide defies universal law. He stated that killing oneself defeats the purpose of self love which is the furtherance of life (p.5) Kant argued that the only suicide that was allowed was to a person with loss of rational agency. Patients with loss of rational agency were like patients with loss of memory and thought. Kant’s opposed the use of Pain medication and analgesics, which can be use in management of pain. He claimed that pain medicine may lead to permanent loss of rational agency. In other words, he said that pain medication can only be used in some cases for temporary loss of rational agency .Kant opposed for suicide for terminally ill, but he turned around and said only for people who have permanently lost their memory and
Time has passed, when there were not enough inventions and technologies to sustain life. In this era, new medical inventions prolong lives, and it has made it possible for humans to live longer, than when there were no remedies to support life. People can live comfortably with terminal illness throughout their lifetime. From observations, People in developed countries such as United States, Canada, England, can live with terminal illness longer than countries in Africa such as Liberia, Nigeria, Somalia, and Sudan. The disparities in the two continents are incomparable, hence, the former have more economic power and advance technologies than the latter. Death is a natural phenomena that should be allowed to happen when the clock stop ticking. Therefore, many people have opposed the end of life for terminally ill patients. The advanced medical technology is widening the gap between life and death of terminally ill, in that the patient can be kept alive and …show more content…
In his book of social philosophy, he opposed the view of suicide for terminally ill patients. He said that suicide defies universal law. He stated that killing oneself defeats the purpose of self love which is the furtherance of life (p.5) Kant argued that the only suicide that was allowed was to a person with loss of rational agency. Patients with loss of rational agency were like patients with loss of memory and thought. Kant’s opposed the use of Pain medication and analgesics, which can be use in management of pain. He claimed that pain medicine may lead to permanent loss of rational agency. In other words, he said that pain medication can only be used in some cases for temporary loss of rational agency .Kant opposed for suicide for terminally ill, but he turned around and said only for people who have permanently lost their memory and