Biomedical Ethics: Death and Dying (Life Sciences Essay)

Biomedical Ethics: Death and Dying
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Lecturer’s Name
Assignment Due Date
Biomedical Ethics: Death and Dying
Euthanasia has been a subject of debate with some people arguing in favor of it whereas others opposing the practice. Most arguments have been based on medical ethics. Proponents of assisted suicide always cite the principle of autonomy, claiming that this principle gives the patients the right to make decisions, which includes the right to die. They have also suggested that assisted suicide prevents pain and suffering for terminally ill patients. In this context, proponents say that a patient should die with dignity instead of living them to suffer until death. However, those against assisted euthanasia contend that this practice denies the patients their inalienable right to life. According to the opponents, the primary goal of healthcare professionals is to improve the well-being of the patients by alleviating pain. As such, physicians need to ensure they do everything they could to resuscitate the patient rather than causing harm. Ethically, euthanasia is wrong when considering the principles of medical ethics such as benevolence and non-magnificence that require physicians not to cause harm to the patients. Assisting patients to die violates these principles.
Vallemain’s argument against the right to die focuses on the aspects of dignity and autonomy. His first argument follows a question of whether anyone has a moral obligation to be assisted or permitted to die. Velleman (1992) uses the words like dignity and autonomy to explain his stance. According to Velleman (1992), different treatments are believed to infringe the dignity of a patient or hold them in a state without dignity. Equally, the right to autonomy requires physicians to respect the wish of the patients. Such wish includes that of dying. However, these clams may or may not bear the truth. As such, Velleman (1992) urges that when evaluating such claims, it is not appropriate to assume that the terms ‘dignity’ and ‘autonomy’ always express similar concepts or carry the same normative force.
Speaking of the dignity by virtue, Velleman (1992) does not invoke anything that needs the ability to walk unaided, or feed oneself. Thus, the dignity adopted in deliberations of medical ethics cannot be the position whose argument on ethical concern is significant to Kantian theory. Therefore, it is imperative to ask whether this dignity carries a value that is worth protection. In this context, Velleman (1992) contends that the term dignity is often used to exalt the obsession of cultures with physical strength, independence and youth. For that reason, he claims that the dignity defined by these values is a dignity not worth having because it is incompatible with healthcare.
Velleman (1992) has similar qualms about the values that autonomy expresses. He outlines that autonomy can only become valuable in two ways. One way is by refusing to adopt any axiom that the patient could not sensibly support. In that case, people value the patient’s self determination ability earned through respect. People respect the autonomy of the patient by considering their involvement in decision making. Another way to value autonomy is by making it a goal to exploit the valuable options available to the patient. In that case, what is valuable is the patient’s opportunity for self determination. This opportunity is valued by regarding it as an object of desire and pursuits instead of respect. More specifically, Velleman (1992) believes that the answer to whether patients should be permitted or assisted to die is no, based on the term ‘dignity’
Velleman (1992) further argued that permitting voluntary euthanasia may fail to promise that the decision of death was made in a morally urgent case. The informed and earnest request of a patient to end life may well indicate when death is appropriate. Hence, allowing euthanasia would open a gap between the need and supply for physician assisted death. More importantly, a mere permission might not justify any moral rights of patient’ self-determination they may have concerning their deaths. It is because allowing assisted deaths would still leave the final decision to caregivers’ hands instead of the patients’.
In this case, Velleman’s (1992) argument against euthanasia focuses on leaving patients to make decisions. He believes that the most problematic aspect about the right to die is that it gives the option of euthanasia directly to patients. According to Velleman (1992), giving this option to patients would commit physicians in assisting in some unjustified deaths. This means that a number of patients may wrongly choose to die not because they are in critical condition, but because they are either tired of life or other people are tired of them.
According to Velleman (1992), a person never makes a mistake in their choice. Such people tend to believe that assisted suicide...