Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Argument for Physician-Assisted Suicide

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 3:31:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I've become interested in this debate recently, as it is an interesting subject. One of the arguments I heard was articulated by Peter Singer. I found it interesting

Death is morally wrong (bad) for the following reasons: it violates autonomy (the person *wants* to go on living, thus killing them violates their autonomy), life is *good* (is fulfilling, brings happiness, etc.), and the people that love and care for the person are caused grief when they die.

In the case of euthanasia, all of these harms are negated. The patient in question *wants* to die (voluntary euthanasia), so their autonomy is not violated by death. Life is not *good* for the patient, as it causes them physical and emotional suffering, unhappiness, etc. And the family members already know the patient will die (terminal illness), it is just a matter of *when*. Thus, the loved one's grief is negated.

Thus, it is not morally wrong to kill someone by euthanasia.

This of course excludes slippery slope and other arguments, which are a different subject entirely.
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 3:39:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:31:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
I've become interested in this debate recently, as it is an interesting subject. One of the arguments I heard was articulated by Peter Singer. I found it interesting

Death is morally wrong (bad) for the following reasons: it violates autonomy (the person *wants* to go on living, thus killing them violates their autonomy), life is *good* (is fulfilling, brings happiness, etc.), and the people that love and care for the person are caused grief when they die.

In the case of euthanasia, all of these harms are negated. The patient in question *wants* to die (voluntary euthanasia), so their autonomy is not violated by death. Life is not *good* for the patient, as it causes them physical and emotional suffering, unhappiness, etc. And the family members already know the patient will die (terminal illness), it is just a matter of *when*. Thus, the loved one's grief is negated.

Thus, it is not morally wrong to kill someone by euthanasia.

This of course excludes slippery slope and other arguments, which are a different subject entirely.

+1
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:08:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:31:49 PM, Hayd wrote:
I've become interested in this debate recently, as it is an interesting subject. One of the arguments I heard was articulated by Peter Singer. I found it interesting

Death is morally wrong (bad) for the following reasons: it violates autonomy (the person *wants* to go on living, thus killing them violates their autonomy), life is *good* (is fulfilling, brings happiness, etc.), and the people that love and care for the person are caused grief when they die.

In the case of euthanasia, all of these harms are negated. The patient in question *wants* to die (voluntary euthanasia), so their autonomy is not violated by death. Life is not *good* for the patient, as it causes them physical and emotional suffering, unhappiness, etc. And the family members already know the patient will die (terminal illness), it is just a matter of *when*. Thus, the loved one's grief is negated.

Thus, it is not morally wrong to kill someone by euthanasia.

This of course excludes slippery slope and other arguments, which are a different subject entirely.

It's a little less clear when you are faced with this story [1]. Also, I wonder why suicide would be illegal but assisted suicide is okay. Euthanasia is okay but Death Penalty is bad? An individually voluntarily committed acts that they knew had ramifications that could result in their death. That too is a choice. I'm honestly perfectly okay with both. However, as I mentioned the story below is very hard to take.

[1] http://www.cnn.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:12:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:31:49 PM, Hayd wrote:

One, "physician-assisted suicide" and "euthanasia" are completely distinct concepts. In our conversations, and in this thread, you've consistently confused them. In "physician-assisted suicide," the doctor prescribes a drug that the patient can administer to themselves at any given time. In "euthanasia," the doctor directly administers the drug to the patient.

Two, this only affirms the morality of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in cases of terminal illness. Do you believe it is moral in other cases? Why?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:45:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:12:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:31:49 PM, Hayd wrote:

One, "physician-assisted suicide" and "euthanasia" are completely distinct concepts. In our conversations, and in this thread, you've consistently confused them. In "physician-assisted suicide," the doctor prescribes a drug that the patient can administer to themselves at any given time. In "euthanasia," the doctor directly administers the drug to the patient.

Two, this only affirms the morality of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in cases of terminal illness. Do you believe it is moral in other cases? Why?

I believe it is completely moral in both cases. If someone is in dire pain and has no chance of recovering the patient should have the right to end their life via suicide. You should have the right to die and the choice to decide that option.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 12:09:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:12:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:31:49 PM, Hayd wrote:

One, "physician-assisted suicide" and "euthanasia" are completely distinct concepts. In our conversations, and in this thread, you've consistently confused them. In "physician-assisted suicide," the doctor prescribes a drug that the patient can administer to themselves at any given time. In "euthanasia," the doctor directly administers the drug to the patient.

I know the difference well, I just forgot to double check. My bad

Two, this only affirms the morality of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in cases of terminal illness. Do you believe it is moral in other cases? Why?

I support suicide even if the person is not ill. I don't think people should kill themselves, but they still have the right to do so. I don't believe it is immoral to do so. So as an extension, I *have* to support it in other cases, but the person should take their own life, not have a doctor do it unless they are unable to and the doctor consents (the doctor is not required).

The ability of a person to have control over their own life, having autonomy in that regard, is paramount. Not having that feels like a violation