The Right to Die with Dignity: A Moral Exploration of Physician-Assisted Suicide

at
Categories
Tags

 

900-1200 wrd argumentative ppr explaining what the proper moral choice should be. One portion of the ppr (300-400 wrds) must provide a Biblical discussion with some reference to the decalogue and perfect/imperfect duties, while another (200-300 wrds) must be non-Biblical, using words that would be convincing to a non-Christian. Also, compare or contrast your view (200-300 wrds) with how utilitarian reasoning might address the situation.

1. An individual who has a terminal illness wishes to take his own life. He is 70 years old and considers himself a financial burden on his family. He wants to explore the possibility of physician-assisted suicide.

A successful ppr will contain the following elements:

Is between 900 and 1200 words long.
Has a clear, focused thesis or unifying message.
Is a well organized, argumentative that transitions smoothly from point to point.
Shows that you are aware of opposing points of view.
Demonstrates you have an excellent understanding of the terms Decalogue, perfect and imperfect duties, and Moral Law while using these key concepts in the same way as the authors in the assigned course readings.
Makes impressive insights while comparing and contrasting your own position with utilitarianism.
Presents a strong defense of Biblical morality, while at the same time being persuasive to a non-Christian reader.

 

Sample Solution

The question of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) presents a complex ethical dilemma, forcing us to grapple with the sanctity of life, the autonomy of the individual, and the role of medicine. This paper argues that in specific cases of terminal illness, with stringent safeguards in place, PAS can be a morally permissible choice. This conclusion is reached by examining the issue through the lens of Biblical principles, exploring a non-religious perspective based on individual rights, and contrasting this view with utilitarian reasoning.

A Biblical Examination: Duties Perfect and Imperfect

The Judeo-Christian tradition provides a foundation for approaching PAS through the concept of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments. The Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), stands as a cornerstone for the sanctity of human life. However, it’s crucial to understand the concept of “perfect” and “imperfect” duties within Biblical ethics. Perfect duties are absolute obligations, such as the prohibition against murder. Imperfect duties, on the other hand, provide guiding principles that can be nuanced based on context.

In the case of PAS, some argue it directly violates the Sixth Commandment. However, proponents of PAS suggest it’s not akin to murder, which involves the unjust taking of an innocent life. Here, the individual is already terminally ill and desires to control the end of their suffering. This perspective aligns more with the concept of an imperfect duty, where preserving life is paramount, but alleviating suffering holds significant weight as well.

The Book of Proverbs offers further guidance: “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it” (Proverbs 3:27). PAS, in this context, can be seen as an act of compassion, allowing a terminally ill person to die with dignity and avoid prolonged suffering.

The Non-Religious Perspective: Autonomy and the Right to Die

Beyond religious doctrine, the right to die with dignity rests on the principle of individual autonomy. People have the fundamental right to make choices about their bodies and their lives, especially when facing a terminal illness. This right is enshrined in various legal frameworks around the world, recognizing the importance of individual liberty in making end-of-life decisions.

Opponents of PAS often raise concerns about coercion or undue pressure on the terminally ill. However, with robust safeguards in place, such as mandatory waiting periods, psychological evaluations, and the involvement of multiple physicians, these concerns can be mitigated.

Utilitarianism vs. Individual Rights

Utilitarianism, an ethical philosophy focused on maximizing overall well-being, offers a contrasting perspective. It might argue that PAS could have negative societal consequences, such as normalizing suicide or devaluing the sanctity of life. Additionally, utilitarians might consider the emotional toll on loved ones who may not be prepared to let go.

However, this approach fails to adequately consider the individual’s autonomy and right to die with dignity. Additionally, from a utilitarian perspective, one must weigh the suffering of the terminally ill individual against the potential emotional distress caused to loved ones. In extreme cases of suffering, PAS could be seen as the option that minimizes overall pain.

Finding the Moral Compass

Ultimately, the decision of PAS should be a deeply personal one, made in consultation with loved ones and medical professionals. Stringent protocols must be established to prevent abuse and ensure the individual’s choice is truly autonomous and free from coercion.

The sanctity of life remains a paramount value, but it should not translate into prolonged, unbearable suffering. PAS, when approached with compassion, safeguards, and a respect for individual autonomy, can be a morally permissible option for terminally ill patients seeking to die with dignity.

Conclusion

The question of PAS is a complex one, demanding a nuanced approach that considers both religious and secular perspectives. While the sanctity of life is a core value, it should not come at the cost of excruciating suffering. By fostering open dialogue, establishing robust safeguards, and prioritizing individual autonomy, a path can be forged that acknowledges the dignity of life while allowing terminally ill patients a measure of control over their final chapter.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer