PhysicianAssisted Suicide Is Not Ethical Patrick Lee I

Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Not Ethical Patrick Lee “I ARGUE THAT PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE IS MORALLY WRONG BECAUSE ONE OUGHT NOT DELIBERATELY ASSIST SOMEONE TO DO WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY MORALLY WRONG. THOUGH NOT MORALLY REQUIRED TO ADOPT EXCESSIVELY BURDENSOME MEANS TO SUSTAIN OUR LIVES, WE ARE MORALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE RESPECT FOR ALL HUMAN LIVES, OUR OWN INCLUDED. EVERY HUMAN LIFE, INCLUDING THE LIFE OF SOMEONE IN EXTREME PAIN AND SUFFERING, IS INTRINSICALLY WORTHWHILE. LIFE IS NOT MERELY INSTRUMENTALLY VALUABLE, NOR DOES ONE’S LIFE CEASE TO HAVE INTRINSIC VALUE WITH PAIN AND SUFFERING. LOVED ONES AND HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS SHOULD ACT TO MITIGATE PAIN AND SUFFERING, NOT DESTROY PERSONS AS A MEANS OF REMOVING PAIN AND SUFFERING”

From a moral point of view � Moral point of view vs. Legal point of view � Example: Suicide. «If the choice to commit suicide is morally wrong then one’s deliberately helping someone else to do that is morally wrong also. » � Formal cooperation: Is it right for a physician to choose to help someone commit suicide or should they not formally assist people to commit suicide?

Case Study : Charlie, a young alcoholic homeless man, is admitted to the emergency department of a modern hospital. • On the one hand: Charlie has no family or friends who will make care of him. So if Charlie recovers, and returns to the streets, he will most likely continue his downward spiral. • On the other hand: Charlie’s organs are still in very good shape; they could be used to save six people who have bright futures The downside, of course, is that this will involve killing Charlie.

Case Study From a consequentialist point of view : � (Someone who holds that the standard for what is morally right is what will produce the best consequences, or the least bad consequences, in the long run) 1. Some might argue that killing Charlie would set a bad precedent, or lead to a slippery slope 2. Others might bite the bullet and say that in some cases killing Charlie would be morally right. From a philosophical point of view : � Intentionally killing a human person seems to involve treating his or her life as if it were merely an instrumental good rather than worthwhile in itself. � Human life itself is a basic human good - So, a choice to kill a human being is a choice contrary to a basic good of a person.

Life itself as valuable � Distinction of intentional killing and accepting death as a side effect. � Humans not just consciousnesses or spirits that inhabit or use bodies; we are living bodily entities

Can Innocent Human Life lose its Value? � One’s life is intrinsically valuable, but insist that it can lose that value, either because one waives one’s right to life, one is exercising one’s autonomy by suicide, or one’s life has lost its dignity.

Autonomy � What makes intentional killing wrong is that it violates someone’s rights (violation of someone’s autonomy) � Hypothetical scenario: Charlie accepts his death Would that make killing him for his organs morally okay? An act may not violate a person’s autonomy (go against that person’s will), but it may still be contrary to the intrinsic good of that person and morally wrong for that reason.

Appropriate Death � Life is like “art” in many ways but death itself is simply not an artistic product. � One’s own death itself is not an act that one performs: whether one wishes it or not, that occurs to a human being rather than be an action one can perform. � This is a bad means chosen to bring about a (possibly) good end and so is morally wrong.

Dignity � Dignity of a person is that whereby a person excels other beings, especially other animals, and merits respect or consideration from other persons. This basic, natural capacity is possessed by every human being, even those who cannot immediately exercise it.

Dignity � Dignity is dignity in action or choice. Thus, one can distinguish between having dignity and acting with dignity. Thus, one can make choices and live one’s life in a dignified manner in relation to severe suffering and indignities (of other types). � There is a type of dignity that varies in degrees, which is the manifestation or actualization of those capacities that distinguish us from other animals. So, in truth, every human being has a basic real dignity based simply on being a person � So, to choose death to avoid indignities (in the sense of loss of independence, which is the manifestation of an underlying dignity) is to act against what has basic, intrinsic dignity for the sake of an ulterior end. But the end does not justify the means. We should continue to treat ourselves as well as others as persons with intrinsic dignity; that is, persons who have dignity simply because they are persons.

Can the intrinsic value of live be outweighed by other considerations? � It seems that one who holds that it can be morally permissible to forgo life- sustaining treatment, is admitting that sometimes the harm of death is outweighed by the good of relief of pain and avoidance of other burdens. � But this assumption cannot be sustained: moral norms measure choices, not outcomes. � The judgment that the value of a human life can be outweighed by the avoidance of suffering is unfounded. But it could be considered only in the condition where human life were not a basic and intrinsic good. � Thus, the choice to kill a human person as a means toward escaping pain and other burdens involves the attitude that human life is not a basic and intrinsic good. A choice to kill a human life is incompatible with a love for that life. Suicide, then, is an objectively morally wrong choice, and so, formally assisting suicide is also objectively morally wrong.

Sarah Faber e Diletta Di Marco THE END Class 13 – End of life (II): Assisted Suicide March 30 Controversies: Is Physician. Assisted Suicide Ever Ethical? Patrick Lee, “No”