Expert answer:reply to this discussion world literature
Solved by verified expert:please see attachment and reply to discussion.
discussion_on_lachs.txt
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1.
Lachs supports physician-assisted suicide and suicide in general based on the
utilitarian principle of “the end justifying the means. In short the end of
stopping the suffering and gaining relief in death is a great good, beneficence,
positivity or pleasure for someone that justifies the means of utilizing suicide
(or physician-assisted suicide) to achieve that greater good.” (Caplan)
Patrick Lee on the other hand is against this so called example of
utilitarianism and “argues that the end should never justify the means. the
intrinsic value, worth and dignity associated with human life are sacred and
ought to be preserved at all cost-no matter what-such that even horrendous pain
and suffering experienced by someone cannot justify suicide. Lee in facts notes
that those who claim that there can be death with dignity actually undermine
their human dignity in the act of suicide.”(Caplan)
Lachs and Lee are on the complete opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes
to physician-assisted suicide. There are consequences when it comes to
physician assisted suicide, one being that it makes suicide socially acceptable
and moralizes the act of killing ones self.
It also squashes any hope for
remission, recover, cure or miracle in the fact that the person was put to death
before it their time.
Another consequence is how unjust and wrong it is to the
dying or disabled.
I would have to support and apply Patrick Lee’s deontology moral principle
against physician assisted suicide and or all suicide in general. The course of
action would be to make suicide and physician assisted suicide illegal because
of the fact that it violates human dignity. In no case should someone end their
life in a way that is socially or medically acceptable. Even with suicide being
illegal, this does not stop the crime from being committed and many times loved
ones grieve the loss. For centuries suicide in general is thought to be horrible
and a tragic or a coward move for criminal to avoid punishment . There are
centers and hotlines to help people who are tempted or have attempted to commit
suicide. As for avoiding pain and suffering there are pain medications that are
heavily relied on in health care to ease pain and allow for pain free end of
life or terminally ill parents that keep human dignity enacted without having to
have a ‘Dr. kill you with your permission’.
2.
John Lachs appeals to the utilitarian style when addressing physician assisted
suicide of the �end justifying the means� (Caplan & Arp, 2014, p.200). John
Lachs reports very simply that life is worthwhile and each of us has the right
to make this decision. It is not up to the state, be it local or federal, but
it is our right to decide. Lachs reports that basic humanity and common sense
must prevail particularly in those cases where someone is suffering. To exist
further doesn�t equate to a life that is humane or dignified. As human beings
Lachs shares that we do not have to continue in this fashion. He further
reports that in those cases where someone is unable to do this on their own then
physician assisted suicides are fully supported.
Patrick Lee on the other hand addresses the morality of physician assisted
suicides citing that it is morally wrong to assist anyone in their efforts to
commit suicide. Lee further refers to a higher being, in that based on God�s
love we do not have the right to take away one�s life, regardless of their pain
or suffering. This in Lee�s view finds physician assisted suicides as immoral
and devalues human life.
However, both authors, share a common theme when it comes to patients who
consciously decide not to take further treatments, as discussed in the readings
where a cancer patient who no longer wants chemotherapy. This is acceptable by
both authors. In both Lachs and Lee decisions not to prolong life results in
the same outcome whereby leaving it to the individuals discretion. In that
respect both authors are similar.
The proper moral principle in the case of Magda is relatively simple which would
have allowed Magda to end her life when she initially decided. Magda was
competent, her mind and thoughts were clear and
assisting her with a less
painful option should have been supported. In March 2013 a Michigan mom chose
to forego cancer treatments so she could prolong her life for her unborn child,
this was her choice. (“Fox News,” 2013) She was religious by all accounts and
accepted the decision she had made. As a daughter watching her father die a
most drawn out and painful death, the choice to support Magda is simple.
Suffering is unacceptable and it is our life and no one else that allows us this
right to make this decision. There is nothing as compelling as when you hear
someone dying share their thoughts, feelings, fears and wishes when they realize
that death is apparent. With a clear head and the ability to make a decision,
assisting Magda to end her life would have been the only human thing to do.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades