Ethical dilemma is a complicated situation that usually comprises an obvious conflict among two inseparable moral principles in which that following a one moral principle could breach the other. Euthanasia is one of the widely known ethical dilemmas over the recent decades. Euthanasia is by means of individual’s competent and voluntary request, physician deliberately ends individual’s life by administering medication with the intention of compassion. On the other hand, Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is as per individual’s voluntary and competent request physician is purposely support a person to commit suicide through providing a drug prescription for self-administration of the drug. Though the physician is separated from the act, ethically
…show more content…
The legislators are attempting reflect justice be making policies and the distribution of goods and services at societal level. The societal policies may aid to limit autonomy. For instance what the individual wishes, chooses, or feels entitled to might not be acceptable in the context of the greater good. Actions and decision that seems to be morally compelling and appropriate for a certain individual might not be permissible due to the extensive risk they pose on other individuals in the community. Euthanasia can be identified one such action. However, proponents suggest that euthanasia is considered to be an ethically justified practice of good dying and it would be unjust and unpleasant to reject the person’s request for euthanasia. In addition euthanasia advocates define the justice as people should receive according to their possibilities. Hence, it is apparent that there is risk of being self-righteous by the euthanasia advocates.
As the foremost intention of palliative care is to relive the pain, discussing about the doctrine of the double effects is a necessity as it is one of best practice in Australia. The doctrine of double effect refers to administration of pain relieving treatment that consequently result in death is justified if the primary intention was to relief the pain and not to hasten the
The legislators are attempting reflect justice be making policies and the distribution of goods and services at societal level. The societal policies may aid to limit autonomy. For instance what the individual wishes, chooses, or feels entitled to might not be acceptable in the context of the greater good. Actions and decision that seems to be morally compelling and appropriate for a certain individual might not be permissible due to the extensive risk they pose on other individuals in the community. Euthanasia can be identified one such action. However, proponents suggest that euthanasia is considered to be an ethically justified practice of good dying and it would be unjust and unpleasant to reject the person’s request for euthanasia. In addition euthanasia advocates define the justice as people should receive according to their possibilities. Hence, it is apparent that there is risk of being self-righteous by the euthanasia advocates.
As the foremost intention of palliative care is to relive the pain, discussing about the doctrine of the double effects is a necessity as it is one of best practice in Australia. The doctrine of double effect refers to administration of pain relieving treatment that consequently result in death is justified if the primary intention was to relief the pain and not to hasten the