The issue of medically assisted suicide, and whether or not to allow it, is a controversial topic to argue. I feel that physicians should be able to help their terminal patients end their lives if that is what they so chose to do, however, it would be a very difficult practice to regulate and monitor. I believe that if a patient chooses this option, it should be required to have four expert pathologists review the case and all come to a unanimous agreement regarding the patients’ diagnosis and prognosis. If all four specialists conclude that the patient will die within the next six months and that their time here, if forced to endure to the end, would be excruciatingly painful, the patients’ final wishes to end his/her life should be granted. I also think that the patient would need to go through rigorous psychological screening in order to demonstrate his/her mind is fully functioning. The ability to rationalize the decision to end his/her own life to a psychiatrist would exhibit understanding that the body and mind are working together as oneself. If he/she can prove that this decision had been reached through conscious consideration in the wake that all other options and treatments that have failed, the patient should have the right to choose to die with dignity. As long as all the doctors agree that there is no alternative to a rapidly approaching, painful death and the psychologists agree that the patient is rational, consciously self aware, and cognitively capable to make the decision to end his/her life, and the patient wants to pursue this path to peace, who are we to stop them? I agree with the pod cast in the fact that the patient should be the one to take the final step and administer the lethal dose that will end his/her suffering. The event should be witnessed by many; therefore, it eliminates any wrongly placed blame on family members or hospital staff. As medical professionals doctors should be there to concoct the lethal dose of medication, but the patient should ultimately be the one to administer it.
Position Paper #8 Raymond Tallis and the end of life in the context of self- identity.
After listening to Raymond Tallis speak on Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and reviewing what some of the philosophers wrote regarding self-identity, it is my opinion that when someone chooses to take their own life through Physician Assisted Suicide, it is their ultimate expression of “self-sovereignty”.
According to Mr. Tallis, the idea of regulating PAS would enable a person who fit within the criteria which is: people who are capable of making an informed decision; people that are terminally ill with less than six months to live and people who are in intense suffering, the choice to end their own life with the assistance of a licensed physician. These people, who would choose death, would also be under the assumption that the existence as their “self” would be better after death than the suffering that they were enduring presently.
Raymond Tallis said that the majority of the people who choose to pursue PAS identify themselves as younger people that have a personality that is more of a “take charge” type of personality. This coincides with the statement that Tallis made: “Assisted dying is one of the most profound expressions of autonomy, the sovereignty of self and that’s why many religions are opposed to it, because they do not like the notion of autonomy as sovereign value.”1
There are many ethical arguments in favor and against PAS. Included in both sides of the argument is the concept of sovereignty. Are we autonomously self-sovereign, or are we accountable to the sovereignty of God? From the evidence that Mr. Tallis provided, those who chose PAS agreed with sovereignty of self, with their ultimate expression of this self-identity resulting in taking their own life. Having compassion for those that suffer from a terminal illness, it is my opinion that we can trust the sovereignty of God even to the very end of life.
Source:
http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/2009/03/raymond-tallis-on-assisted-dying.html Podcast of Mr. Raymond Tallis
The topic of “assisted dieing” is very debatable and should not be taken lightly. I feel that there are situations in which assisted dieing should be allowed. Individuals who have terminal illnesses and are mentally capable and able to make decisions should be given the option of assisted dieing. Some of these people are in so much pain and are so weakened by their illness that they do not feel like “themselves” anymore. This is to say that if at one time they were happy, outgoing and fun, with the terminal illness they are in constant pain they fell unhappy and are not to be the person who they once were and I think they want to be again. As stated in the pod cast the intense suffering devalues the valuable life they once had. I feel that people who have a short amount of time to live and are suffering should be able to go to a licensed medical doctor to assist them in dieing a peaceful and painless death. Their death is inevitable so why prolong that person’s suffering? To me it seems inhumane to allow that person to suffer and see their character and personality slowly deteriorate along with their body. I feel that if I were in that situation I would not want to experience pain and have my family and friends remember me the way I am, opposed to them remembering me in constant pain and unhappy and helpless.
Listen to this Podcast with Raymond Tallis (from Philosophy Bites) and discuss the end of life in the context of self identity Upon listening to this podcast…although his voice drones on I realize that Raymond is actually a good person to discuss this. His original thought was to be against assisted suicide. It is interesting because I suspect at one time he had just as much information to be against the subject of assisted dying as he does for assisted dying. So I first wonder what exactly it was that changed his way of thinking. Assisted dying being put in the context of self identity, self identity as being a choice of who you are and a choice on what you become in the end is interesting. Jean Paul-Sartre wrote that there is no correct choice only choices. This line I believe runs in with a person’s choice on their life as well as on the end of their life. In the podcast a few really good points were made in reference to the bill of assisted dying; having a terminal illness and only six months or less to live and unbearable suffering from uncontrollable symptoms. If this is the actual way that assisted dying will be allowed it would work perfect for those who choose. The other part is the patient’s mental capacity and making sure that the patient is not in a depressed state. What I believe is going to be hard to judge is a patient’s mental capacity. Who will decide whether or not a patient is mentally stable or sound enough to make the choice on whether they are ready to die? Will the patient tell the doctor that they are sound? Will a doctor decide that a person is mentally sound to make this decision? There is the perfect world where a doctor knows his patient enough to know what kind of state that patient is in. My belief however is that as long as I have been alive I have had a number of doctors, because of what my insurance will cover. So over the years when my insurance changes my doctor has changed. So now you end up with a patient who perhaps has a relationship with a doctor and we hope that it is the same doctor at all the time through this terminal illness. The other thing is that doctors retire or leave and then there is a doctor/patient change again. Sure I believe this is about choice. However, we are right back to a big question on choice. In a perfect world Tallis’ Bill on assisted dying I believe would work out well. The best part about it is that the patient finds a way to the end and takes care of these themselves. I also agree with his final statement about autonomy. The world should be free for a rational person to draw a moral conclusion about how they choose to live their life as well as how they choose to end their life. One final point though. As I have gotten older I have known a few people that have been on their death bed, and more than once I believe that a decision was made by the patient to end their life and there was no legal finagling in the end. So the choice is there it is just not in bill form or legal law form.
I think Raymond Tallis is pretty even minded when it comes to the discussion on Physician Assisted Suicide. It does not sound that his opinion is related to any other ulterior motives or considerations. He seems to actually be quite thoughtful on the subject. I do think that some people are in situations that are so unbearable that to end their lives by choice would be the only way to “go out with dignity”. I know I would not want to be left suffering, or even be in a situation where I was suffering but had no way to convey this to others. I do not know what percentage of people with terminal illnesses are considered to be in an insufferable or unchangeable condition, but the patients who are in this position should have some control over the remainder of their lives. Patients who are in insufferable conditions do not have a lot left that they can control in their own lives. After all, that is how each of us runs and directs our own lives, and makes our own decisions-by taking control over the events in our life. This is one of the main ways we build up our personal dignity. Nearing the end of life, with pain the only thing that one can focus on, the choice to end one’s own life may be the only control one has left. I think this is the imperative part of the argument of whether one should have the right to end their life. One should never have to die in a hospital or other place in excruciating pain and slowing losing control over your own body. This over all, should be heavily considered. I do have some reservations on ending your own life. These reservations are not fully reconciled though. It seems sort of against nature in my mind to take life, for whatever reason. I compare it to a dying animal that is put down with a final bullet. This is hard to witness, even with the suffering involved. This is not the same as a patient being given a medical cocktail to pass away peacefully. Maybe it’s the means of dying that seems cruel to me. Maybe I just haven’t fully squared myself with the idea of dying yet.
We as people should have the right to choose to take our own lives if we want to. As we all know if people choose to commit suicide they will do it. Typically the people who do kill themselves end up dying alone, depressed, and leave this world in a horrible state. Families are left with heartbreak that can never be healed, and many unanswered questions. In the case of “Assisted Dying,” much of the confusion, sorrow, and pain could be eased. As humans we develop a new self identity through our experiences. I don’t feel that any person could have a complete understanding of being terminally ill, or dealing with unbearable pain unless they are going through it. To try and tell a person who has a full mental capacity that they must endure a slow painful death, because of their own ethics is wrong. For some people their views on suicide are stemmed from their religious beliefs. However, not everyone share the same beliefs. It is obvious that certain criteria must be met in order for assisted suicide to be granted. Furthermore, having an option like this available might even help reduce the rate of suicides. Since there are people that battle with depression and other issues that lead them to suicidal thoughts, this could allow a chance for people to speak about it more openly. Someone who was considering it might speak to their doctors, and the doctors would be more aware of the mental status of their patient and get them help. Another positive aspect is it would allow families to prepare, say their goodbyes, and start the healing process. Lastly, the family member wouldn’t have to struggle with trying to cope through their pain, or worry about what it would do to their family if they chose suicide. Losing a loved one is hard, but seeing a loved one suffer I feel is worse.
What if you were suffering and still had to go through more pain to be alive? Many people can overcome that obstacle like people with cancer, but there are several people that can’t stand all the pain. Before I used to think how people can kill others when they told them to do it, but then I imagined an older person who had arthritis and it hurt them when they walked. I felt sad and that’s why if they choice that decision that meant they had thought about it, very thoroughly. But there are others who want to die and they aren’t sick; that’s when I think they should talk to a psychologist. Everyone that wants to go through PAS should talk to the psychologist to observe if they should be alive or have doctors take their lives. I believe that if they pass the idea of PAS, it would benefit numerous amounts of those who are in constant pain. Few people think that this is immortal because doctors are killing innocent people just because they said to kill them. To me, I believe that it’s a crime to kill another person, but many of us don’t know what others are going through. Everyone in this world is different, so this means we can handle so much pain until we just want to die. At the beginning of the podcast, Raymond Tallis describes the Physician Assisted Suicide as cruel, but as he went on with the other person he was very open-minded about the whole process. The presenter talked about the process of PAS more easily because Tallis wasn’t objecting the idea. Although there are people who think that it is beneficial, others believe that it shouldn’t be done because it’s killing human beings. They consider that since those people were brought to this world they should have the right to live all of throughout their life, even if they are in pain. These people are usually the religious ones because they God wants them to go through life instead of murdering themselves. This topic can be difficult because people are going to have a different belief system and that depends on their answer, but for me, I think that those who have gone through so many medical treatments and don’t want to go with much more should decide because it’s their live.
Self and End of Life When I saw this assignment for the first time, I thought no way. No way would I ever vote for a law legalizing assisted suicide. As a practicing Christian, I believe that life is a gift. Therefore I believe that the taking of a life, even one’s own, is wrong. Turns out that this issue is not as black and white for me as I thought, and the religious beliefs that I hold are the reasons why I am having second and third thoughts. In my heart I know I would never want to take my own life, even if I was suffering great and unrelieved pain. I know this because I have lived with pain on a daily basis for the last decade. It is not unrelievable, so it can be said that I don’t know how I would react if it were such. However, one can make such a decision in advance of an end of life situation, and I believe that how one lives to the very end teaches and helps those left behind. That is my choice. However, because I believe that freedom to choose and make one’s own decisions is a God given right, I see that I am in the middle of a quandary, preserve life or preserve freedom of choice. Dr. Tallis mentions that assisted dying is going on every day, and that it is being done without any safeguards. My daughter, who is an emergency room nurse, has said that this is true. She also said that most, if not all, nurses believe that such assistance is appropriate in certain circumstances. She, like Dr. Tallis, talked about the use of medication as a means of symptom suppression and how it can hasten death. In the light of their comments, it seems logical to establish a law or body of laws, to protect the patient and those providing end of life care. One reason I have always had concerns about such laws, is the “slippery slope”, argument that is usually raised. There is the concern that once such a law is passed, that eventually someone would take an action to “aid” someone to die, who did not want or need, such assistance, an elderly family member that has become too much “trouble” to care for, or something like that. Dr. Tallis points out that a law would actually provide protection against such an action, because every case would be carefully monitored throughout the end of life stage of care. Such a law would have provisions requiring the patient have full mental capacity, and medically verifiable proof that the patient has less than six months to live, as the result of a terminal illness. Patients with depression or illnesses caused by the patient’s own actions, would not be permitted such assistance under the law. Dr. Tallis also points out that far more patients investigate the possibility of assisted dying, than actually follow through. I have concluded that perhaps preserving life at all costs may not be the right choice all the time, and that such a law could be passed for those who want to make that choice. I would not be able to vote for it, still believing that life is sacred. However, I would also not vote against it, thus preserving others’ freedom to choose how one may end one’s own life.
I listened to a podcast from Philosophy Bites that covered the topic of assisted suicide. I agree with the guest speaker, Raymond Tallis, that it should be legal for doctors to prescribe a lethal dose to a patient, if that patient requests it and is mentally competent, terminally ill, and enduring great suffering because of their illness. I believe one of the most important parts of self-awareness is self-possession. Other people should not be allowed access to our bodies unless we grant it and if our minds work but our bodies do not then others should heed our wishes concerning our bodies. I don’t understand how we as a society are fine with people denying themselves a life saving blood transfusion or having a do not resuscitate order but we want to deny individuals the right to end great personal suffering with assisted suicide. People should either believe in the right to self-autonomy for the mentally stable or not. I don’t think it is acceptable to say I believe people have the right to self-possession in all of these cases except for this one. In this case it maybe even more important to allow the patient the right to decide, after all we can never understand what that person is going through and this final choice may be the only control that they have left. If a once vital, healthy and happy person were to the point of considering ending their “self”, then it is probably the only option that seems acceptable to that individual and as an individual they have a right to choose it. Some people have a problem with assisted suicide because of their religious beliefs. I would say to those people that they have the right to not choose this option, but if another individual patient chooses it, that choice is between them and their doctor. In the end, individuals have to come to terms with their own conscience and their own God.
Works Cited: Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy a Text with Integrated Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print
Assisted suicide and even euthanasia are two very controversial ways of ending one’s life. Some people might see it as an act of compassion while it may differ from other people’s notion of morality. I pretty much agree with Raymond Tallis on the issue of Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) in specific cases. To me, each person has the right to decide what to do with his/her life, and thus deciding how to end it. I can imagine a person with terminal illness choosing to end life in a peaceful or quick way, instead of painfully and slowly succumbing to a disease that cannot be cured. Those who oppose to assisted suicide are mostly influenced by their faith. In religions such as Hinduism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Judaism (among others), life is a gift and suicide is cataloged as a serious sin, sometimes the price to be paid is damnation. In most cases we worry about the immortality of the soul instead of the physical pain of the person. If people with non-curable diseases decide to end their lives, I support the notion of assisted suicide as I’d rather see the person being put out of his/her misery than watch how they are consummated by the disease. Act of compassion or mortal sin, it’s up for them to decide.
Ending any kind of life is very difficult. I agree with assisted suicide. If a doctor has a terminal-ill patient and there is nothing that can be done to save that person. Then, I dont see why assisted suicide can take place. If the patient is still mentally capable of making a decision on ending their life, then there shouldn't be a problem. That would help them in a way to cope with their pain.
Posts
11 comments:
Position Paper #8
End of Life and Self Identity
The issue of medically assisted suicide, and whether or not to allow it, is a controversial topic to argue. I feel that physicians should be able to help their terminal patients end their lives if that is what they so chose to do, however, it would be a very difficult practice to regulate and monitor. I believe that if a patient chooses this option, it should be required to have four expert pathologists review the case and all come to a unanimous agreement regarding the patients’ diagnosis and prognosis. If all four specialists conclude that the patient will die within the next six months and that their time here, if forced to endure to the end, would be excruciatingly painful, the patients’ final wishes to end his/her life should be granted. I also think that the patient would need to go through rigorous psychological screening in order to demonstrate his/her mind is fully functioning. The ability to rationalize the decision to end his/her own life to a psychiatrist would exhibit understanding that the body and mind are working together as oneself. If he/she can prove that this decision had been reached through conscious consideration in the wake that all other options and treatments that have failed, the patient should have the right to choose to die with dignity. As long as all the doctors agree that there is no alternative to a rapidly approaching, painful death and the psychologists agree that the patient is rational, consciously self aware, and cognitively capable to make the decision to end his/her life, and the patient wants to pursue this path to peace, who are we to stop them? I agree with the pod cast in the fact that the patient should be the one to take the final step and administer the lethal dose that will end his/her suffering. The event should be witnessed by many; therefore, it eliminates any wrongly placed blame on family members or hospital staff. As medical professionals doctors should be there to concoct the lethal dose of medication, but the patient should ultimately be the one to administer it.
Position Paper #8 Raymond Tallis and the end of life in the context of self- identity.
After listening to Raymond Tallis speak on Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and reviewing what some of the philosophers wrote regarding self-identity, it is my opinion that when someone chooses to take their own life through Physician Assisted Suicide, it is their ultimate expression of “self-sovereignty”.
According to Mr. Tallis, the idea of regulating PAS would enable a person who fit within the criteria which is: people who are capable of making an informed decision; people that are terminally ill with less than six months to live and people who are in intense suffering, the choice to end their own life with the assistance of a licensed physician. These people, who would choose death, would also be under the assumption that the existence as their “self” would be better after death than the suffering that they were enduring presently.
Raymond Tallis said that the majority of the people who choose to pursue PAS identify themselves as younger people that have a personality that is more of a “take charge” type of personality. This coincides with the statement that Tallis made: “Assisted dying is one of the most profound expressions of autonomy, the sovereignty of self and that’s why many religions are opposed to it, because they do not like the notion of autonomy as sovereign value.”1
There are many ethical arguments in favor and against PAS. Included in both sides of the argument is the concept of sovereignty. Are we autonomously self-sovereign, or are we accountable to the sovereignty of God? From the evidence that Mr. Tallis provided, those who chose PAS agreed with sovereignty of self, with their ultimate expression of this self-identity resulting in taking their own life. Having compassion for those that suffer from a terminal illness, it is my opinion that we can trust the sovereignty of God even to the very end of life.
Source:
http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/2009/03/raymond-tallis-on-assisted-dying.html
Podcast of Mr. Raymond Tallis
The topic of “assisted dieing” is very debatable and should not be taken lightly. I feel that there are situations in which assisted dieing should be allowed. Individuals who have terminal illnesses and are mentally capable and able to make decisions should be given the option of assisted dieing. Some of these people are in so much pain and are so weakened by their illness that they do not feel like “themselves” anymore. This is to say that if at one time they were happy, outgoing and fun, with the terminal illness they are in constant pain they fell unhappy and are not to be the person who they once were and I think they want to be again. As stated in the pod cast the intense suffering devalues the valuable life they once had. I feel that people who have a short amount of time to live and are suffering should be able to go to a licensed medical doctor to assist them in dieing a peaceful and painless death. Their death is inevitable so why prolong that person’s suffering? To me it seems inhumane to allow that person to suffer and see their character and personality slowly deteriorate along with their body. I feel that if I were in that situation I would not want to experience pain and have my family and friends remember me the way I am, opposed to them remembering me in constant pain and unhappy and helpless.
Listen to this Podcast with Raymond Tallis (from Philosophy Bites) and discuss the end of life in the context of self identity
Upon listening to this podcast…although his voice drones on I realize that Raymond is actually a good person to discuss this. His original thought was to be against assisted suicide. It is interesting because I suspect at one time he had just as much information to be against the subject of assisted dying as he does for assisted dying. So I first wonder what exactly it was that changed his way of thinking.
Assisted dying being put in the context of self identity, self identity as being a choice of who you are and a choice on what you become in the end is interesting.
Jean Paul-Sartre wrote that there is no correct choice only choices. This line I believe runs in with a person’s choice on their life as well as on the end of their life.
In the podcast a few really good points were made in reference to the bill of assisted dying; having a terminal illness and only six months or less to live and unbearable suffering from uncontrollable symptoms. If this is the actual way that assisted dying will be allowed it would work perfect for those who choose. The other part is the patient’s mental capacity and making sure that the patient is not in a depressed state.
What I believe is going to be hard to judge is a patient’s mental capacity. Who will decide whether or not a patient is mentally stable or sound enough to make the choice on whether they are ready to die? Will the patient tell the doctor that they are sound? Will a doctor decide that a person is mentally sound to make this decision? There is the perfect world where a doctor knows his patient enough to know what kind of state that patient is in.
My belief however is that as long as I have been alive I have had a number of doctors, because of what my insurance will cover. So over the years when my insurance changes my doctor has changed. So now you end up with a patient who perhaps has a relationship with a doctor and we hope that it is the same doctor at all the time through this terminal illness. The other thing is that doctors retire or leave and then there is a doctor/patient change again.
Sure I believe this is about choice. However, we are right back to a big question on choice. In a perfect world Tallis’ Bill on assisted dying I believe would work out well. The best part about it is that the patient finds a way to the end and takes care of these themselves.
I also agree with his final statement about autonomy. The world should be free for a rational person to draw a moral conclusion about how they choose to live their life as well as how they choose to end their life.
One final point though. As I have gotten older I have known a few people that have been on their death bed, and more than once I believe that a decision was made by the patient to end their life and there was no legal finagling in the end. So the choice is there it is just not in bill form or legal law form.
I think Raymond Tallis is pretty even minded when it comes to the discussion on Physician Assisted Suicide. It does not sound that his opinion is related to any other ulterior motives or considerations. He seems to actually be quite thoughtful on the subject.
I do think that some people are in situations that are so unbearable that to end their lives by choice would be the only way to “go out with dignity”. I know I would not want to be left suffering, or even be in a situation where I was suffering but had no way to convey this to others. I do not know what percentage of people with terminal illnesses are considered to be in an insufferable or unchangeable condition, but the patients who are in this position should have some control over the remainder of their lives.
Patients who are in insufferable conditions do not have a lot left that they can control in their own lives. After all, that is how each of us runs and directs our own lives, and makes our own decisions-by taking control over the events in our life. This is one of the main ways we build up our personal dignity. Nearing the end of life, with pain the only thing that one can focus on, the choice to end one’s own life may be the only control one has left. I think this is the imperative part of the argument of whether one should have the right to end their life. One should never have to die in a hospital or other place in excruciating pain and slowing losing control over your own body. This over all, should be heavily considered.
I do have some reservations on ending your own life. These reservations are not fully reconciled though. It seems sort of against nature in my mind to take life, for whatever reason. I compare it to a dying animal that is put down with a final bullet. This is hard to witness, even with the suffering involved. This is not the same as a patient being given a medical cocktail to pass away peacefully. Maybe it’s the means of dying that seems cruel to me. Maybe I just haven’t fully squared myself with the idea of dying yet.
We as people should have the right to choose to take our own lives if we want to. As we all know if people choose to commit suicide they will do it. Typically the people who do kill themselves end up dying alone, depressed, and leave this world in a horrible state. Families are left with heartbreak that can never be healed, and many unanswered questions. In the case of “Assisted Dying,” much of the confusion, sorrow, and pain could be eased.
As humans we develop a new self identity through our experiences. I don’t feel that any person could have a complete understanding of being terminally ill, or dealing with unbearable pain unless they are going through it. To try and tell a person who has a full mental capacity that they must endure a slow painful death, because of their own ethics is wrong. For some people their views on suicide are stemmed from their religious beliefs. However, not everyone share the same beliefs.
It is obvious that certain criteria must be met in order for assisted suicide to be granted. Furthermore, having an option like this available might even help reduce the rate of suicides. Since there are people that battle with depression and other issues that lead them to suicidal thoughts, this could allow a chance for people to speak about it more openly. Someone who was considering it might speak to their doctors, and the doctors would be more aware of the mental status of their patient and get them help. Another positive aspect is it would allow families to prepare, say their goodbyes, and start the healing process. Lastly, the family member wouldn’t have to struggle with trying to cope through their pain, or worry about what it would do to their family if they chose suicide. Losing a loved one is hard, but seeing a loved one suffer I feel is worse.
What if you were suffering and still had to go through more pain to be alive? Many people can overcome that obstacle like people with cancer, but there are several people that can’t stand all the pain. Before I used to think how people can kill others when they told them to do it, but then I imagined an older person who had arthritis and it hurt them when they walked. I felt sad and that’s why if they choice that decision that meant they had thought about it, very thoroughly. But there are others who want to die and they aren’t sick; that’s when I think they should talk to a psychologist. Everyone that wants to go through PAS should talk to the psychologist to observe if they should be alive or have doctors take their lives.
I believe that if they pass the idea of PAS, it would benefit numerous amounts of those who are in constant pain. Few people think that this is immortal because doctors are killing innocent people just because they said to kill them. To me, I believe that it’s a crime to kill another person, but many of us don’t know what others are going through. Everyone in this world is different, so this means we can handle so much pain until we just want to die.
At the beginning of the podcast, Raymond Tallis describes the Physician Assisted Suicide as cruel, but as he went on with the other person he was very open-minded about the whole process. The presenter talked about the process of PAS more easily because Tallis wasn’t objecting the idea. Although there are people who think that it is beneficial, others believe that it shouldn’t be done because it’s killing human beings. They consider that since those people were brought to this world they should have the right to live all of throughout their life, even if they are in pain. These people are usually the religious ones because they God wants them to go through life instead of murdering themselves. This topic can be difficult because people are going to have a different belief system and that depends on their answer, but for me, I think that those who have gone through so many medical treatments and don’t want to go with much more should decide because it’s their live.
Self and End of Life
When I saw this assignment for the first time, I thought no way. No way would I ever vote for a law legalizing assisted suicide. As a practicing Christian, I believe that life is a gift. Therefore I believe that the taking of a life, even one’s own, is wrong. Turns out that this issue is not as black and white for me as I thought, and the religious beliefs that I hold are the reasons why I am having second and third thoughts.
In my heart I know I would never want to take my own life, even if I was suffering great and unrelieved pain. I know this because I have lived with pain on a daily basis for the last decade. It is not unrelievable, so it can be said that I don’t know how I would react if it were such. However, one can make such a decision in advance of an end of life situation, and I believe that how one lives to the very end teaches and helps those left behind. That is my choice. However, because I believe that freedom to choose and make one’s own decisions is a God given right, I see that I am in the middle of a quandary, preserve life or preserve freedom of choice.
Dr. Tallis mentions that assisted dying is going on every day, and that it is being done without any safeguards. My daughter, who is an emergency room nurse, has said that this is true. She also said that most, if not all, nurses believe that such assistance is appropriate in certain circumstances. She, like Dr. Tallis, talked about the use of medication as a means of symptom suppression and how it can hasten death. In the light of their comments, it seems logical to establish a law or body of laws, to protect the patient and those providing end of life care.
One reason I have always had concerns about such laws, is the “slippery slope”, argument that is usually raised. There is the concern that once such a law is passed, that eventually someone would take an action to “aid” someone to die, who did not want or need, such assistance, an elderly family member that has become too much “trouble” to care for, or something like that. Dr. Tallis points out that a law would actually provide protection against such an action, because every case would be carefully monitored throughout the end of life stage of care. Such a law would have provisions requiring the patient have full mental capacity, and medically verifiable proof that the patient has less than six months to live, as the result of a terminal illness. Patients with depression or illnesses caused by the patient’s own actions, would not be permitted such assistance under the law. Dr. Tallis also points out that far more patients investigate the possibility of assisted dying, than actually follow through.
I have concluded that perhaps preserving life at all costs may not be the right choice all the time, and that such a law could be passed for those who want to make that choice. I would not be able to vote for it, still believing that life is sacred. However, I would also not vote against it, thus preserving others’ freedom to choose how one may end one’s own life.
I listened to a podcast from Philosophy Bites that covered the topic of assisted suicide. I agree with the guest speaker, Raymond Tallis, that it should be legal for doctors to prescribe a lethal dose to a patient, if that patient requests it and is mentally competent, terminally ill, and enduring great suffering because of their illness. I believe one of the most important parts of self-awareness is self-possession. Other people should not be allowed access to our bodies unless we grant it and if our minds work but our bodies do not then others should heed our wishes concerning our bodies. I don’t understand how we as a society are fine with people denying themselves a life saving blood transfusion or having a do not resuscitate order but we want to deny individuals the right to end great personal suffering with assisted suicide. People should either believe in the right to self-autonomy for the mentally stable or not. I don’t think it is acceptable to say I believe people have the right to self-possession in all of these cases except for this one. In this case it maybe even more important to allow the patient the right to decide, after all we can never understand what that person is going through and this final choice may be the only control that they have left. If a once vital, healthy and happy person were to the point of considering ending their “self”, then it is probably the only option that seems acceptable to that individual and as an individual they have a right to choose it. Some people have a problem with assisted suicide because of their religious beliefs. I would say to those people that they have the right to not choose this option, but if another individual patient chooses it, that choice is between them and their doctor. In the end, individuals have to come to terms with their own conscience and their own God.
Works Cited:
Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy a Text with Integrated Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print
http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/2009/03/raymond-tallis-on-assisted-dying.html
Assisted suicide and even euthanasia are two very controversial ways of ending one’s life. Some people might see it as an act of compassion while it may differ from other people’s notion of morality. I pretty much agree with Raymond Tallis on the issue of Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) in specific cases. To me, each person has the right to decide what to do with his/her life, and thus deciding how to end it. I can imagine a person with terminal illness choosing to end life in a peaceful or quick way, instead of painfully and slowly succumbing to a disease that cannot be cured. Those who oppose to assisted suicide are mostly influenced by their faith. In religions such as Hinduism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Judaism (among others), life is a gift and suicide is cataloged as a serious sin, sometimes the price to be paid is damnation. In most cases we worry about the immortality of the soul instead of the physical pain of the person. If people with non-curable diseases decide to end their lives, I support the notion of assisted suicide as I’d rather see the person being put out of his/her misery than watch how they are consummated by the disease. Act of compassion or mortal sin, it’s up for them to decide.
Ending any kind of life is very difficult. I agree with assisted suicide. If a doctor has a terminal-ill patient and there is nothing that can be done to save that person. Then, I dont see why assisted suicide can take place. If the patient is still mentally capable of making a decision on ending their life, then there shouldn't be a problem. That would help them in a way to cope with their pain.
Post a Comment