Physician-assisted suicide is defined as a doctor knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge, means, or both that is required to commit suicide. This includes prescribing, and supplying the individual with lethal dosages of medication as well as counseling them on the administration of the medications. The person wishing to end their life does so at their own hand; life is not ended by the physician directly as is the case with euthanasia. John Lach supports the idea that physician-assisted suicide is the morally ethical choice as he believes the end to daily suffering in the wake of say terminal illness is the ultimate �good� outcome. By applying the utilitarian theory Lach argues that focusing how the good one is doing the individual in question justifies the questionable act of assisting in their suicide. Having had a personal experience with a close family member, Lach has very strong believes in this moral debate. ����������� Patrick Lee provides an argument against physician-assisted suicide from applying a deontological moral principle. From a deontological perspective, one approaches the topic from a sense of duty; adherence to societal norms, principles, or rules. As opposed to focusing on what the outcome of the decision would be. Lee has a seemingly religious viewpoint on the morality of ending a life, even your own, there is no situation in which it is morally ok to take a life. He offers support to argument by explaining how since life itself is intrinsically valuable it is not possible to quantify the value of one�s life compared to any amount of good. (Caplan, 2014). ����������� The example of Lach�s and Lee�s utilization of opposing moral theories demonstrates that either theory can be the appropriate theory to apply to the topic of physician-assisted suicide depending on which supports the individual�s own personal moral principles and how they define the value of human life through, for example dignity and autonomy. I found my opinion on the subject of physician-assisted suicide to also have a utilitarian moral theory. I believe an individual has a right to decide the value of the quality or worth of their own life (in terms of terminal illness or failing health, for example) and should the end result of suicide supply that individual with the greatest good than the end justifies the means. I do not believe that an individual, such as Chester or Joan Nimitz, should be expected to suffer through basic daily living activities without the promise of relief and death is eminent and that individual wishes to waive their right to life as a means to an end in terms of daily suffering. I, much like Latch, find it morally unethical to watch an individual suffer through their end days against their wishes. Since the consequences or outcomes involve an individual human life; I believe it is important to focus on the outcome for the individual and base the decision to, or not to, end one�s life on what is of the greatest good for that individual. Applying the principle of deontology to such a subject matter follows a moral agenda aimed to protect those who will continue to live and believe that no human has the right to end a life, even their own. Meanwhile the individual whose life is in question is suffering to be alive each moment.
Purchase answer to see full attachment