promotion image of download ymail app
Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 7 years ago

What is the ethical controversy with physicians assisted suicide?

5 Answers

  • Becky
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I live in Oregon and I voted 3 times for the right to die with dignity. Finally, we passed the law. Oregon is the ONLY state in the US to allow the right of human beings to take their own lives when they are faced with a terminal illness. I want everyone in America to have that right because:

    1). It is OUR own body, each one of us. Our body does NOT belong to (is not the property of) the STATE. When the state mandates laws and regulations which prohibit you from using your body as you choose, they are taking your right away from you to possess the one thing they have no right to own - your own personal body.

    2). Your body is not the possession or property of physicians or the medical system. Why should human beings be subjected to a tyrant system of thinking, so warped and bent, that it says that a human only has the right to die AFTER suffering horribly and AFTER medicine has tried every trick in the book to keep them alive as long as they can. Your body does not belong to your Doctor.

    3). The right to die does not just mean anyone has the legal right to kill themselves for no reason, especially if they are emotionally disturbed or depressed and could be helped by psychology and medication. The right to die means, you have a right to end your life, while you are still not in horrible pain and suffering and that SUCH PAIN and SUFFERING, serves no one, not the State, not Doctors or Hospitals and most of all, NOT YOU.

    4). I believe a physician or the medical system should attempt WITH the permission of the patient, to extend life IF that is what the patient chooses...not to force the patient or the family of the patient to endure useless, needless, often EXPENSIVE treatments to sustain a life that has no level of quality.

    5). The real reason why the medical system is against assisted suicide (it is also, more politely and less politically charged, called "the right to die with dignity.") is because they make MONEY off of the sick and dying, to SUCK every last penny out of your pocket, so that you die a pauper - regardless of the horrible pain and agonizing suffering you must endure - the medical system is a VAMPIRE, living off of and sucking the blood out of people. Why should we allow them to get away with this? If you talk about ethics, I say, it is immoral for a system designed to preserve life to force life at the expense of every penny a person has to their name.

    I hope people in the other 49 states stand up for themselves and decide they have the right to die if they choose as an alternative to horrible medical experiments, horror treatments to extend life at all costs in hospitals, so that medical administrators and doctors can stuff their pockets full of money they suck off the dying.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    Patients who claim to be in need of physician assisted suicide struggle with health difficulties that will only negatively progress. Doctors such as Jack Kevorkian, for example, feel that it is their responsibility to put these people out of there misery in a "humane" manner so that the end of their lives aren't terribly painful.

    My father's a physician (a psychiatrist) and is adamantly against physician assisted suicide. His theory is that the goal should always be for patients to "get well." For him, assisted suicide is "giving up." As a psychiatrist, he sees MANY people who are in pain and would like to die. He also sees those same patients get well and live happy lives.

    So on one hand, you have physicians who attempt to assist suicide for patients who feel hopeless and who are in pain. On the other side, you have physicians who feel that this method is absolutely unethical due to the nature of "killing" patients (despite the reason) and not trying to improve the quality of the patient's life as first priority.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    I believe you! I do not fully grasp how we are able to let a loved one lay and undergo. My older brother has the manage over our 90 12 months old father and he went towards our Fathers wishes that had been mentioned in Dad's residing will. Dad had a don't Resuscitate. Dad acknowledged quite it appears that evidently No Feeding tubes!(he has had one for over a yr and a 1/2) No I.V..'s(he has had one for over a yr and a half) but it's to late now Dad is conscious and fairly lucid.He can speak. He would be in affliction now. If taken off of the feeding tubes and medicines. He would undergo.I hate seeing my liked Father in this form.I'm not angry with my Brother due to the fact My brother suggestion he was once doing the correct thing. He thought that the Dr.'s might restoration our Dad to excellent health. How ever my brother stated that if Dad had been to have a relapse he would not intervene he'd Let the lord take Dad house. I did let the Vet euthanize my very historic very unwell cat. I do know my Dad is just not a Cat however he is very exact to me and he did not wish to live this fashion! My Dad was a preacher he cherished the Lord so do I and i trust that the Lord is not going to let my Father endure much longer.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    anyone who does not support assisted suicide is a torturer...

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    The oath is, First, do no harm. Death is seen as harm.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.