Bio Ethics

Fortin 1 Article written by: Wayne Fortin Do we have the right to die? Euthanasia ranks among the highest of the bio medical ethics topics being debated in today’s society making it a prime example of civic discourse. When it comes to such a disputed ethical topic among our government and common citizens it is important that the facts are not skewed. The type of euthanasia that is being supported by the pro activists is known as physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide is a type of euthanasia where a patient requests pills from a physician and after successful review the patient then takes the pills and dies a painless death. It would seem legitimate that the patient would have to make a request that is first reviewed by a physician, then the request is examined by a psychiatrist to make sure the individual is making a fully aware decision, which would finally result in the death being handed out. You may ask why people request to be killed. Well, the answer to the previous question lies among a certain demographic of people. Among those who are asking are people who are in hospitals suffering from a terminal illness or those that know that an illness such as cancer is hereditary and may want the option of taking an alternate route to pain and suffering when it becomes time. The usual age ranges of the pro euthanasia demographic are those 50 and above. The question comes down to; Is euthanasia morally acceptable? I believe that euthanasia is a topic of civic discourse because it is currently illegal in the majority of the United States of America. The only place in America where physician assisted suicide is legal is in Oregon. Many people that lie in their hospital beds due to a terminal illness may want the option to have euthanasia performed onto them to achieve a good death rather than a bad death. People that do not support euthanasia say that the hospitals are used for prolonging life by use of medicine and therefore forced death is non negotiable. Other issues involving

Fortin 2 combating the issue of euthanasia include sanctity of life. Some people believe that it is against our right to kill ourselves because our life was given to us by god. Others believe that the legalization of physician assisted suicide where the patient is killing themselves will lead to a slippery slope saying that soon it will be legal for the doctors to kill us with our permission, which then leads to the assumption that if we are in a vegetative state doctors may soon then be allowed to make the decision to decide if we live or die even if we are not able to make a full coherent decision. If the slippery slope analogy is sound then a trust issue will arise between patient and physician. Patients may soon state that medicine is used to kill. Pro euthanasia rights activists have many reasons of their own why euthanasia should be legalized. The people for the legalization of euthanasia may say that if a person is terminally ill, it will be right for them to have a choice to die however they want since death will soon be inevitable. Giving people a choice to die by means of physician assisted suicide may save them from dying a painful death. Some people may say that keeping someone alive costs too much money by means of life support and euthanizing would save the hospitals money. The ones who are taking on civic discourse are the ones that want to legalize euthanasia because they are opposing what the law is at the moment. Since the law states that it is illegal to perform euthanasia in the majority of the nation, going against this law would be considered civic discourse. The people that want to legalize the euthanasia law use the rhetoric tool of appealing to emotion also known as pathos. To appeal to emotion I claim that autonomy is a golden ticket and must be achieved, meaning it is the highest point of freedom and self worth to be able to decide your own destiny. The main philosophy behind euthanasia is when it comes time in we must get rid of the greater evil which is pain by accepting the greater good which is

Fortin 3 death. It is stated that being terminally is very mentally depressing and elimination of depression would be a great appeal to ones emotion as well. Both parties in the euthanasia topic both seem to appeal to logic very well. The party that opposes the euthanasia law appeal to logic when they claim the hospitals will save a lot of money if the patient decides to euthanize themselves rather than to stay on life support. The slippery slope example of one legalization will lead to another legalization of a different kind is another form of applied logos. Euthanasia is a topic that will be debated over for many more years to come such as the abortion debate. The main argument in abortion is whether or not the fetus is a person with full human rights or not. Euthanasia holds the same amount of debate as the abortion topic, except we ask if an individual human as a right to terminate their own well being. There are pros in legalizing euthanasia such as ending pain. Cons of the legalization of euthanasia are those of the patient losing trust in physicians. Since this is a topic still in debate by our government and lawmakers it is up to the individual to decide on what he or she wants to do if they ever find themselves in a situation where they start to think about euthanasia. Applying euthanasia in their situation would definitely be a prime example in civic discourse if he or she decides to go on with it. As in the beginning we still find ourselves asking “what is moral?”