Friday, January 15, 2010
One of the largest issues in medical ethics today is assisted suicide. In most of the United States, there are laws banning the aid of doctors when terminally ill patients wish to end their lives before their illness has run its full course. In the 1997 Washington v. Glucksberg Supreme Court Case it was decided that patients should be allowed to refuse medical care and hasten their deaths without invasive treatments. When, however, death is not immediately imminent and a path of suffering and hardship is set, a patient is denied the right to end their life with dignity and without pain. The consequences of the act of condemning a person and those they love to suffer unnecessarily transcends the ideas concerning the morality of taking a life. Consequential imperative, rather than the categorical ideas of morality, must be used to consider the freedom of the individual to spare their self and others from suffering.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Awesome topic and idea. Should the freedom of the doctor to refuse to take a life be considered? What if morally the doctor feels that she can't take a life in good conscience? As a doctor do you have to be willing to provide assisted suicide?
ReplyDeleteThis is great Naomi! I would have liked to see you go into a little more detail on the idea of "consequential imperative" and maybe have your own definition to go along side it. I don't know if you go into this at all in your paper but, what about the families of the one choosing to die? What do you think they would have to say to a doctor agreeing to help the patient die?
ReplyDeleteGreat topic. I would have maybe gone more into the discussion of responsibility. Are you saying that the patient's freedom is more important than the doctor's responsibility? Also, like Sarah said, maybe go deeper into what you mean by the "consequential imperative" and the "categorical ideas of morality". What exactly is the "morality of taking life"?
ReplyDeleteI really like where you're going with this! I think that one of the controversies surrounding this argument is at what point you can define "suffering and hardship" as being severe enough to warrant the ending of a life. Who has the right to make that call? And should it be made based on a concrete set of legal definitions of what constitutes such "suffering and hardship", or personal, subjective definitions of morality? Also, I understand that this view contrasts with kant's view that "everyone has something in them worth preserving". But does it really comply with Mill's idea that actions should be taken based on what will warrant "the greatest good for the greatest number"? is taking a life ever "good", or is it merely "necessary"?
ReplyDelete:), Sarah
Expand on what you mean by suffering and how to determine when a patient has reached that state. What about the ethical dilemmas facing the doctor and his responsibility to end a life?
ReplyDeleteGreat topic very intresting. I agree with Haley, expand on the point when the patient has reached the sated of suffering. Also add more clarity what you mean by Consequential imperative.
ReplyDelete-Are you saying that the doctor has to compromise his morals if the patient under his or her care, wants to die by euthanasia?
-I think this bring up a interesting argument whether or not the doctors have to comprise their morals to fulfill the patients request.
-Last comment: the thesis it a little vague, do you mean the responsibility lies with doctor or the family of patient.
I think this is a really interesting idea for an essay and you’ve done a good job of explaining it in the intro. I’m a little unclear on what you mean by consequential morality and would have liked to have a short explanation of that. I also think that you did a good job of talking about the freedom aspect, but how does responsibility tie into your argument?
ReplyDeleteIf the patient's death is uncertain but very likely, is assisted suicide still morally imperative? What if the doctor's morals are incompatible with the family's, such as if the doctor believes the patient is in severe enough suffering to warrant assisted suicide, but the family does not?
ReplyDeleteI like the concept you're raising here of the participants being responsible for the results of their actions, as well as the denial of a categorical solution to the issue.
Nice and concise. I would of liked another sentence or two containing your opinion, just so I am super clear where the paper is going to take me.
ReplyDeletegreat topic, the paragraph is well put together. Like sarah, it would be good to have a stronger definition of consequential imperative.
ReplyDeleteMan, you just kicked it in the pants. I can tell you are a really clear and organized writer already. Way to go!
ReplyDeleteDoes the doctor have a say in this?
ReplyDeleteWhy should the patient have any more control over thier life than anyone else? Save the Supreme Court Reference for later in the paper so you have more time to talk about it in detail. What is the consequential imparative? explain.
ReplyDelete