paper assignment 2
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Washington State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
365
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by DrTrout2249
Marcus Luttrell’s request for euthanasia due to his declining vision health is ethically justified in this case. ML believes that his vision impairment will cause him to not be able to do what he loves as his profession and thinks he will not find fulfillment elsewhere as he becomes blind. ML has a right to his own personal autonomy, allowing himself to make rational decisions about his own quality of life. ML has considered all reasonable alternatives and still believes Euthanasia is the best option, along with that it will end his own personal suffering in a way the patient sees fit.
ML’s case fits well with what an author stated about voluntary active euthanasia. The author explained that self determination and autonomy is valuable because it allows people to form their own lives and live in accordance with their own idea of. Good well-being. This allows people to take responsibility of their own lives. (Brock). As some situations don’t fall under this category like people with treatable clinical depression. I believe ML has the right to request this euthanasia down the road because he has justified reasons to do so. This was brought up in class in the PAS 1 presentation that autonomy is respected in all other medical cases, but is contended in the case of euthanasia, which is wrong. His eyesight is unrecoverable and that affects the way he desires to live his life which affects the quality of his life within his eyes. With him being in a place where voluntary active euthanasia is legal (Canada), he falls well under the lines of legally and ethically requesting this to happen from a qualifying and willing doctor. Euthanasia is not a common occurrence, meaning that when people request it, they truly desire
it. Euthanasia being an option for some people who are battling terminal illnesses or injuries that affect their quality of living is essential because of people like ML. The emotional trauma of
hating your life every day due to something you can’t control weighs on people, and some would rather just end their suffering in a safe way. In my eyes it would be hard to deny someone
of what they deem is a “quality life” because you most likely have not experienced what they are going through. Another author portrayed in a reading that when three assumptions are made about the requirements of euthanasia, they could potentially make it justifiable under certain circumstances. One would be that the request for euthanasia is voluntary, another would be that all reasonable options and alternatives to euthanasia are explored and offered to the patient, and a reliable system to report and respect the practices of the doctor and the wants of the patient. (Arras). To relate this to ML, he has listened to requests of him to explore other options and seems to have considered and made his decision. He is not mentally impaired
or clinically depressed, meaning he can still make rational decisions for his life on his own. ML is voluntarily requesting this so it is an option when the time comes, and he can prepare to live out the rest of his years to his best ability. I believe ML’s situation falls under what the author considers a “genuine case”. (Arras). This is because ML is unfortunately beyond the nature of good medical care and his vision will not be able to be fixed. For opposing arguments, one might
say that euthanasia may subconsciously promote physicians to resort to that option before giving care to those who are suffering from terminal illnesses. This assumption is incorrect because physicians are bound to ethical standards to care for their patient and listen to their desires. Also, some may argue that doctors entire moral center is to not kill, and to be trusted and respected as a a protector of life. I would combat this by stating that the physician is not “killing” the patient. The physician is respecting the patients right to autonomy and complying with their wishes. Which in the case with ML, is the right thing ethically and legally to do.
Works Cited:
Brock, D. W. (1992). Voluntary Active Euthanasia. The Hastings Center Report, 22(2), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/3562560
John Arras, “On the Slippery Slope in the Empire State,” in Mappes and DeGrazia, eds., Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006), pp. 431-437.)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Reflection:
In the feedback I received on Paper 1, I saw one common theme come up. I would bring up certain evidence from authors to support my claim, but then not apply enough additional information to why my claim relates to the topic the author is portraying in their research. In this paper, I tried to provide more information for my reasoning as to why I picked certain pieces
of evidence from each author. I tried to relate everything in the readings to ML’s case and it allowed me to piece things together more fluently. I applied more complex reasoning on what counterarguments people may have to my stance and tried to put myself in the shoes of someone who has an opposing view of my own. The feedback as a whole factored into how I even started writing my essay. I re-read all readings having to do with Euthanasia in order to fully understand the topic and come up with the best possible answer. I had a problem in the section with demonstrating understanding of my topic, so I felt it was very important that I get a
full grasp of this topic before I even started typing which I truthfully did not do in my first paper. I tried to link ideas from both the patient and physician side to get both sides on my paper. In my future papers, I will be sure to look at the feedback and use it to improve my views on biomedical ethics and develop my critical thinking skills.
Jake O’Hearn