Religion and Bioethics: Physician Assisted Suicide, a Religious Perspective

In J. Gay-Williams’ piece “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”, he begins by asserting that euthanasia is gaining popularity within our society, then defines euthanasia, and finally offers retributions as to why euthanasia is neither morally nor practically right. According to Gay-Williams, “euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person” (Gay-Williams 1979, 278). Based off aspects of his definition, Gay-Williams formats his three main arguments against active euthanasia which stem from nature, self-interest, and practical effects. Out of the three proposed arguments, the argument from nature stands out personally, as the least sound. Briefly stated, this argument is not sound because it fails to offer distinction

When faced with adversity and difficult dilemmas, people have different ways to figure out what to do; some people make pros and cons lists while other people just go with their gut. Ethical theories like utilitarianism and deontology, can aid people in making these difficult choices. Utilitarianism focuses on the results of your actions, rather than the intent behind them, as the goal of the theory is the create the greatest good for the greatest amount people. On the other hand, deontology follows a strict moral code concentrating on the right or moral action rather than the results it yields. While utilitarianism and deontology focus on different aspects of decision making, the effect and the intent respectively, they often yield the same result; more often than not the more ethical decision leads to the greater result. These ethical theories are both used in Snow Falling on Cedars by David Gunderson where they both agree on the topics, yielding the same results.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

“Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes one’s duty to do a particular action just because the action, itself, is inherently right and not through any other sorts of calculations – such as the consequences of the action” (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). In many aspects deontology is contrasted with utilitarianism. Deontology is based upon principle and does not calculate the consequences (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). Deontology attracts those seeking a stronger moral attraction because it refers to commanding rather than commending and commanding is a stronger structure (Boylan, 2009, p. 172). The

It wasn’t until the beginning of the 12th century and the rise of Christianity that physician assisted suicide viewpoints changed because of the religious belief that life is a gift from God and that no one had the right to take a life. Consequently, the Hippocratic Oath was taken seriously and faithfully followed by physician thus sparking the debate for legal assisted suicide for centuries to come.

The ethical theories of deontology and the branches of utilitarianism; act and rule, display similarities and differences within the meanings of both. Act utilitarianism theory is the focus on the outcome of an act. Rule utilitarianism is the method of an individual’s actions. The theories of deontology and utilitarianism both present moral rules and values. Deontology focuses on the motives of an action, whereas utilitarianism centers more on the end result. The Act utilitarianism theory is more effective by judging the morality of an action based on the consequences of its outcome.

Today, the fact that euthanasia is morality or immorality permissible is a very controversial issue debated and discussed by doctors and philosophers. This point generated a controversial debate. The discussion takes into account the ethics of medical

     This essay is dedicated to the expression of the various official views of religious bodies within our nation. Most major denominations are represented. These religions have long been the custodians of the truth, serving to check the erratic and unpredictable tendencies of political, judicial and social bodies which would have Americans killing off their elderly and handicapped.

There is a widely shared view that active and passive euthanasia are importantly different. It is said to be one thing (passive euthanasia) to let patients die, which may sometimes be permissible, but it is quite another (active euthanasia) to kill them, which never is. This discrimination between two forms of euthanasia has been forcefully attacked by certain philosophers on the ground that the underlying distinction between killing and letting die is either not clear or, if clear, not morally important. This paper defends that there is distinction between killing and letting die. My first argument that will defend my thesis will be based on the definition of killing or letting to die and the difference in the intentions that accompany the

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

In contrast with deontology, there is utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist theory. Utilitarianists consider consequences to be an important indicator of the moral value of one’s actions (Rich, 2008). In consequentialist analyses, conclusions about what is right or wrong are based on the consequences (Tanner et al., 2008). Utilitarianism is to promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people that is possible in situations.

John Finnis, in his article A Philosophical Case Against Euthanasia, provides a compelling theoretical framework through which to view contemporary discourse surrounding euthanasia. First, this paper will draw on Finnis' position in order to establish the natural law understanding of the intrinsic value of human life. It will be argued that the right to life comes from a source other than the individual who is alive, or his family or caregivers, granting it either implicitly or explicitly. It will further be argued that the individual's duty not to have oneself euthanized, or euthanize another, is not an incident of any special responsibility that one assumes or undertakes, but is a straightforward incident of an ordinary duty everyone owes his

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises

Utilitarianism is the principle that the correct form of action be taken to benefit the greatest number of people. Deontology is defined as the area of ethics involving the responsibility, moral duty and commitment. Both utilitarianism and deontology deal with the ethics and consequences of one’s actions and behavior despite the outcome.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.