Soc120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility

SOC120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility

October 23, 2012

Upon entering the dreary bedroom you hear the soft whisper of an oxygen tank. A woman lies in her hospital bed where she has spent the last six months of her excruciating life. Once a strong, beautiful, independent, woman now she no longer can eat, walk, or even drink from a cup. She lies there helpless as a baby. Now she feels not only immense pain from her disease but in fact agony from the reality that she has become a burden financially and physically and emotionally. Her family though attentive and loving is nearly incapable of looking her in the face as she has dissipated to nearly nothing. The only two words that come out of her weak voice are, "help me?" What does she want help with? It is not to bring her anything; instead it is to help her die. Although, some believe it is wrong to assist in suicide just as it would be to kill an innocent person; it is not the same as helping someone who has absolutely no quality of life who is in fact terminal. A person who can no longer care for themselves and are in long-term pain, diagnosed with an incurable disease which will inevitably end their life.

The idea of physician assisted suicide is an understandably a controversial topic with many different variables. The first being that some believe it is first and foremost for God to decide. This of course brings us to what could happen if it were to be legalized. Objectors argue this would open up the flood gates of where it could lead. Such as, people flat out being murdered under the premise of "assisting". Also, would it may not stop at only those who can give consent. This opens the door for the possibility for people who are unable to communicate for instance those who remain in a vegetative state. The list of worries is a long list with many valid concerns. Of those concerns one of huge alarm was this comment from a doctor who is from the Netherlands where assisted suicide is legal, "why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia?'" (Smith, 1997) This shows that although it may help some die, it could inevitability take the possibility of a natural death from all of us.

According to, Tännsjö & Claëson (1996), "Deontology prohibits only active killing. It is compatible with this doctrine that we allow people in poor countries to starve to death while we are living comparatively well. Even some kinds of active killing can be morally acceptable (and required) as long as it was not intended."

While exploring deontology in this instance it could also be said that a person who chooses to smoke while knowing the outcome of their habit is not committing suicide. The effects of smoking cigarettes are known by nearly everyone in our country yet millions continue to smoke. It could be argued that it is suicidal but it will not say on their death certificate, cause of death: suicide. Nor will it say on any addict's cause of death suicide. There could be endless instances of a grey area here such as a stunt man knowingly taking life-threatening risks every day. While people may judge these examples among themselves as a suicidal type of act neither the law medical definition regard these acts as taking of one's own life.

This leaves a huge gap for what can be right and wrong. For example, it is acceptable for a doctor to give a patient medicine that kills her if the objective is to kill the pain not the patient. This becomes okay so long as the purpose was pain and not death regardless if it was predictable. (Tännsjö & Claëson, 1996)

Immanuel Kant a famous German philosopher theories have been against assisted suicide based on it ends life period his ideas seem to be unclear to some while; yet there are people who both disagree and agree with his conclusion. Next, we will look Dr. Iain Brassington who thoughts were this on the topic of Kant and his opposing of assisting suicide, "An agent who takes his own life acts in violation of the moral law, according to Kant; suicide, and, by extension, assisted suicide are therefore wrong. By a similar argument, and with a few important exceptions, killing is wrong; implicitly, then, voluntary euthanasia is also wrong. Kant's conclusions are un-compelling and his argument in these matters is undermined on considering other areas of his thought." Brassington, I. (2006).

The particular topic can have some many points untouched that the reasoning for either pro or con can vary in a massive number of ways. Such as, the physician has a duty to obligate his Hippocratic Oath which loosely states that no physician shall ever give a lethal dose of medicine nor engage in ending life. The possibilities for more harm than good are really are of mammoth proportions. To attempt to counter all of the negative variables that have been discussed we now look into emotivism.

Emotivism is described as an approach or response of feelings toward a behavior (Mosser, 2010). Therefore, one can simply not like the idea of assisting suicide and have a completely legitimate reason based on what that person sees as wright and wrong. For example, a religious person can simply state that within the Ten Commandments it is said that killing is wrong, which shows no distinction between an act of violence as opposed to a merciful act of caring. Looking at this topic from an emotivism point one can poses only a sole belief that it is never