Using the three articles "Aussie wins right to die," "Woman's suicide by living will," and "Gillian Bennett" as support, what is your personal view regarding the right to die?
The difference between suicide and assisted suicide I think is what really draws the boundaries in respect to when it becomes someones ' right to die'. Suicide evokes an idea of a rash emotional response by someone who presumably is not in a ' sane' mental state. Naturally, humans don't want to die and when we response to our emotions with a desire to do so it would seem wrong. Any choice that is made under an unstable mental state I thinks should be classified as inconsistent with character,illogical and invalid, only because if a person can decide to kill themselves on a whim, what's to say the won't decide that they actually don't want to die 5 minutes later. ( Or when the environmental situation improves )
However , I think the boundaries change once one considers situations in which it is not a choice made on a whim , but rather a choice to end suffering/pain and in a way that is safe and legal. The fact that a choice like that involves the development of concrete reasons and arguments could suggest a more well thought out and considers response. I think in that sense, that is truly what defines autonomy. It is not only the ability to make choices and exercises freedom but utilize rationality and logic to do so. Particularly in cases when the facts have been laid out and there's a kind of 'terminality' ( sickness etc ) involved, it is not a situation that can be improved. Because of this I think people's right to die should be respected , but only provided that there's the possibility to improve the quality of life through it. In the cases illustrated, the patients want to choose their lives because their lives are no longer ' worth living' , and no prospect of improvement.
In any case, I think death should be a worst case scenario and not a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Which is why I agree with the struggle people face justifying their choice and it provides a method of validation ( of sorts ) Life, I think should be protected at all costs until it is not a life anymore , and more importantly if it has no potential to ever be.
I agree with you Anahi that this is a serious sort of situation and needs to be very carefully and rationally thought out and discussed. It would be awful if just anyone who felt they were "suffering unbearably" should go ahead with it. This could lead to a situation in which escapism becomes the norm. I appreciate what you say in your last paragraph. Perhaps you can use it for future essays!
As I just typed and subsequently lost my entire comment, i will keep this brief. Yes, people should have the right to die. No, not all people. Psych wards and antidepressants were created for people trying to commit suicide prematurely. However, with the invention of modern medicine and the ability to keep people's lives going far beyond their natural time span, there is also a responsibility to call enough enough and accept that sometimes living isn't the same as keeping the heart pumping.
The problem Mark would be deciding at what exact point is enough enough? A patient could still proclaim that his situation is unbearable when in fact there are resources and medications to alleviate this pain. I recognise that "living" isn't the same thing is keeping the heart pumping, but there is a danger in that "living" can be defined so subjectively.
To me, the issue of having the right to die is completely black and white for me, naturally, we should have the right to choose the time and place of our premature death. I mean, yes it's all well and good to revere the sanctity of life, and what a precious gift it is from God and as such it would be blasphemy to leave this plane prematurely. But in reality, all I can see preventing someone from being freely able to end their life as they will, is merely prolonging their suffering. If someone truly had nothing to live for and wish to die, wouldn't you be cruel for denying them that right? Who are you to deny them their only desire left, their autonomy? Naturally, those not of the right mind or reason for their decision should first be counselled with and guided back to their rationality before making a final decision. Their reason must be apt, not made by some arbitrary whimsy or influence.
The news articles all show examples of people who have clearly had a long time to think about their decision. Gillian Bennett rationally discusses her decision at length, clearly showing she has good reason to want to consider suicide. Kerrie Wooltorton had to attempt suicide at least 10 times before she finally found a way to keep the doctors from saving her life, demonstrating the depth of her suffering, prevented from moving on. And finally, Chris Rossiter, has the most reason to do so. Imagine being able to think, speak and imagine, but not able to do basic bodily functions like walk, changing clothes, using the bathroom or eating alone. For him, life has lost all meaning in his state, and it would be torture alone to simply envisualize the rest of his life in this way. Any judge who would rule in opposition for his motion, I would deem cruel and barbaric. The only qualm I have about his case was that his suicide was to be by starvation, and not by some other quicker, less painful way of death.
To conclude, I believe the autonomy of life is the most vital characteristic of all when considering one's right to live. If any rational person seeks to end their life, who are you to say no? Will you be judge and savior(but you know, in a negative way), condemning them to live? To deny them that right, is to prolong their pain, to torture. Could you find it in your heart to be so cruel?
Very powerfully put Shawn. Your view is strongly supported by the cases of Gillian Bennett and Chris Rossiter. I also like the phrase "judge and saviour" to describe how we tend to make decisions in these types of scenarios. What about someone who has no autonomy, i.e. in a vegetative state? Do we then have to play judge and saviour, and how?
Did the exact same thing as Mark........clicked 'publish' and lost the entire thing. But to summarise:
A depressed person should not be allowed to take their own life, as with Kerrie. Especially not when they have already attempted suicide nine times within the last year - how can it not occur to a doctor to provide the patient with some psychological help? It is a well-known fact that depression is treatable; in other words, death is not the only way out.
When it comes to a perfectly rational person however, such as Christian, I think their autonomy should be fully respected. Especially when there is a justifiable reason, such as being a quadriplegic, and not being able to carry out any acts of worth in your life, diminishing any form of value.
Gillian's situation is slightly more blurred, as I know elderly people with dementia who are living perfectly happy, valuable lives. The transition from sanity to dementia was difficult however, as is the experience of being forgotten for loved ones. My gut feeling says no, however I recognise that it is very situational. In all honesty though, I do not think I could go along with allowing someone I loved to take their own life to avoid dementia, however selfish that may be.
Finally--someone who is taking the opposing stance. I think you are right in this last point: it can be very traumatic to witness someone you love dying "before their time" when you feel you can be there to provide emotional support and love (and yet they prefer dying over your caring for them). This might be why assisted suicide laws in given countries are very strict; a patient must be deemed terminally ill by at least 2 doctors, and the patient must write 2 separate affidavits specifying they are in a completely rational frame of mind in requesting an "early death."
After reading the articles, my normally strong and liberal views on suicide and assisted suicide have been wavering a little. My first reaction to the advanced directive case of suicide was that the woman somehow legally obtained the ability to take her life, perhaps even on a whim, to use the phrase Anahi used, and was somehow able to oblige medical staff to not do anything about it. Besides recognizing these facts, my instinct was to think it was slightly questionable and seemed to legitimize an act that, within that context, did not seem to be that legitimate – it was stated that she was suffering from depression over her inability to have a child. While depression in itself is a clinical condition and would definitely have reduced the quality of her life substantially, since the depression was linked so intimately to a particular situation she did not like, it is possible that some sort of solution to the situation could have increased the quality of her life dramatically. For example, still being able to have a baby by adopting a child, etc. Instead, she was able to end her life in a legitimate way that prevented even doctors from trying to medically help her, which seems like a decision she could’ve made in a moment of irrationality.
However, she had created an advanced will in this case, and so there is some evidence to say that this decision was not entirely made on a whim, as there was premeditation and anticipation of it.
This leads me to believe that autonomy should be respected in all cases, especially if there is evidence of having premeditated the decision. There will always be some debate as to how ‘rational’ a person’s decision is or whether they are in the ‘right frame of mind’, but I feel as though that debate just translates to ‘Does the person’s decision conform to an external standard of legitimacy and rationality? If it doesn’t, it is not rational and the person is not in their correct frame of mind, and autonomy does not have to be respected.’ This is wrong in many ways – the point of autonomy, as Deeley pointed out in class, is to be able to make decisions without needing them to be objectively understood by everyone around them, and to deny autonomy when a person’s decisions doesn’t conform to an external standard is self-refuting. Furthermore, I think a person’s autonomy should be respected even further if there is evidence of the person having considered their decision for a long time and reaching this conclusion, as, not only will they feel this decision is ultimately the best for them, but they will also be unhappy insofar as their wishes are not respected while they are living, which will diminish the quality of their life further.
However, I do feel slightly uneasy about the concept of legitimizing suicide using advance directives, because of the slight possibility that using one of those and ultimately committing suicide could just be one long whim, and if the person hadn’t committed suicide, might actually have had a longer and happier life afterwards. This leads me to believe that in order for autonomy to be completely respected, there needs to be some degree of medical seriousness to a situation that diminishes the quality of their life. For example, I do not think a stressed out university student should be able to take their life and legally forbid doctors from helping her, because it is quite obvious that there are ways to deal with stress and to be happier with one’s life at university and suicide is most certainly not the ideal way out. I don’t necessarily think the autonomy needs to be respected so much here, because it appears that the student has not considered every aspect of the situation, and it is not so much about her decision not meeting an external standard of rationality as the idea that she does not know about many aspects of her situation.
You raise all good point Maddie. If you read what I wrote in reply to Ariana, there are indeed strict requirements and prerequisites in place (in some countries anyway) to limit the ease with which one can request assisted suicide.
I personally hold the conviction that the right to die fundamentally respects our status as autonomous beings with the potential of rational thought. I reject the belief, religious or otherwise, that the endeavour to make life-altering –or in this case life-ending– decisions of which you are the sole beneficiary should be policed or hindered by others.
In many cases, I find that the right to commit suicide is even more contentious than that of assisted suicide, and, as this perplexes me, I chose to focus on that particular issue. It is a widely-held view that the root of suicidal thoughts is depression, and while I appreciate the recognition that this is a legitimate mental illness, the argument that it is a) infallibly curable with the right treatment and b) the only mental illness that can lead to suicide, trivialises both the issue of suicide and mental illness. Living with a mental illness can, in certain cases, be a debilitating experience of life-long suffering. Even with the right clinical attention, it often entails long-term prescriptions of medication and therapy, neither of which guarantee the fast-track road to recovery or –in the case of medication– are without considerable side-effects. While mental illness may not be considered with the same gravity as a physical/terminal illness, the repercussions on quality of life are certainly there. There are numerous sufferers of quite severe mental illnesses who are not institutionalised, and considered fit to be a part of society and allowed to make decisions that presuppose a rational way of thinking. I think that compassion and access to effective treatment are essential for all those who live with mental illnesses, but to write them off as incapable of assessing the extrinsic quality of life denies them the fundamental autonomy that many of us consider a human right.
This was something of a tangent, but I felt that it was important in order to establish my argument. In my opinion, the case against suicide is inconsistent with the other expectations of rationality and decision-making that –except for in extreme cases of mental patients– are placed upon individuals as functional members of society and, above all, human beings.
Rachel, the only question I have is about the phrase "sole beneficiary" in describing the role of the person wanting to die. What does this mean--that the only person who benefits is the person who dies? No implications at all for other people? Would they perhaps suffer (if not benefit)? Think of family, friends, even the community. Kant would claim there is no such thing as an action that does not have implications for the wider scope of humanity.
Using the three articles "Aussie wins right to die," "Woman's suicide by living will," and "Gillian Bennett" as support, what is your personal view regarding the right to die.
My point of view on this issue asserts the claim that certain criteria need to be fulfilled in order to grant someone autonomy regarding human life. These criteria are largely based on the assumption that the needs of the many trump the needs of the few, especially when an outcome regarding the taking of life can have widespread repercussions.
The first criteria is the underlying basis behind the rest of my argument and if confirmed, negates the need for the other criteria. The criteria is; proof that the person in question has complete and total control over their mental faculties and is able to demonstrate significant intelligence and rational thought. The same amount as would be necessary to serve as a functioning member of society. So long as this is fulfilled, it indicates that the person willing to take their life has carefully considered the decision and its consequences. In short, if you are a fully rational human being, you deserve autonomy. All three of the cases discussed here are examples of rational people making rational decisions and hence were justified according to this criteria.
If in the case that after psychological evaluation, it is determined that the person who wishes to take their own life is not of sound mind, other factors need to be considered. The first is the presence of any authorised agreement made at a time of mental stability such as a living will that asserts that the person does indeed want to die. If a document such as this is not present and yet the patient believes they want to end their lives, a utilitarian approach is necessary. If a medical or psychological report comes to the conclusion that there can be no change in the conditions that led to them making this decision, and if the prolonging of their life will only cause them more pain, not to mention the possible effects it would have on the relatives and friends who would burden the cost of keeping them alive. A committee of those highly esteemed for their rational thought must weigh up all of the consequences that could arise from either decision and make the choice that would lead to the least amount of unhappiness.
Most, if not all patients who voluntarily ask for death will fall under the criteria mentioned above and will have their autonomy respected. This textual flowchart was made to show my rationale for largely choosing autonomy over any other philosophy in these cases instead of blindly advocating one side because of an emotional response as most cases on this issue are dealt with today legally.
You've been very rational Anirudh, in bringing us through various stages of thinking about how to react to a person who wishes to die prematurely. Am I right in thinking that in cases where the patient is in a coma you would then go immediately to the utilitarian approach since the patient is unable to exercise autonomy/rationality?
The difference between suicide and assisted suicide I think is what really draws the boundaries in respect to when it becomes someones ' right to die'. Suicide evokes an idea of a rash emotional response by someone who presumably is not in a ' sane' mental state. Naturally, humans don't want to die and when we response to our emotions with a desire to do so it would seem wrong. Any choice that is made under an unstable mental state I thinks should be classified as inconsistent with character,illogical and invalid, only because if a person can decide to kill themselves on a whim, what's to say the won't decide that they actually don't want to die 5 minutes later. ( Or when the environmental situation improves )
ReplyDeleteHowever , I think the boundaries change once one considers situations in which it is not a choice made on a whim , but rather a choice to end suffering/pain and in a way that is safe and legal. The fact that a choice like that involves the development of concrete reasons and arguments could suggest a more well thought out and considers response. I think in that sense, that is truly what defines autonomy. It is not only the ability to make choices and exercises freedom but utilize rationality and logic to do so. Particularly in cases when the facts have been laid out and there's a kind of 'terminality' ( sickness etc ) involved, it is not a situation that can be improved. Because of this I think people's right to die should be respected , but only provided that there's the possibility to improve the quality of life through it. In the cases illustrated, the patients want to choose their lives because their lives are no longer ' worth living' , and no prospect of improvement.
In any case, I think death should be a worst case scenario and not a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Which is why I agree with the struggle people face justifying their choice and it provides a method of validation ( of sorts ) Life, I think should be protected at all costs until it is not a life anymore , and more importantly if it has no potential to ever be.
I agree with you Anahi that this is a serious sort of situation and needs to be very carefully and rationally thought out and discussed. It would be awful if just anyone who felt they were "suffering unbearably" should go ahead with it. This could lead to a situation in which escapism becomes the norm. I appreciate what you say in your last paragraph. Perhaps you can use it for future essays!
DeleteAs I just typed and subsequently lost my entire comment, i will keep this brief. Yes, people should have the right to die. No, not all people. Psych wards and antidepressants were created for people trying to commit suicide prematurely. However, with the invention of modern medicine and the ability to keep people's lives going far beyond their natural time span, there is also a responsibility to call enough enough and accept that sometimes living isn't the same as keeping the heart pumping.
ReplyDeleteThe problem Mark would be deciding at what exact point is enough enough? A patient could still proclaim that his situation is unbearable when in fact there are resources and medications to alleviate this pain. I recognise that "living" isn't the same thing is keeping the heart pumping, but there is a danger in that "living" can be defined so subjectively.
DeleteTo me, the issue of having the right to die is completely black and white for me, naturally, we should have the right to choose the time and place of our premature death. I mean, yes it's all well and good to revere the sanctity of life, and what a precious gift it is from God and as such it would be blasphemy to leave this plane prematurely. But in reality, all I can see preventing someone from being freely able to end their life as they will, is merely prolonging their suffering. If someone truly had nothing to live for and wish to die, wouldn't you be cruel for denying them that right? Who are you to deny them their only desire left, their autonomy? Naturally, those not of the right mind or reason for their decision should first be counselled with and guided back to their rationality before making a final decision. Their reason must be apt, not made by some arbitrary whimsy or influence.
ReplyDeleteThe news articles all show examples of people who have clearly had a long time to think about their decision. Gillian Bennett rationally discusses her decision at length, clearly showing she has good reason to want to consider suicide. Kerrie Wooltorton had to attempt suicide at least 10 times before she finally found a way to keep the doctors from saving her life, demonstrating the depth of her suffering, prevented from moving on. And finally, Chris Rossiter, has the most reason to do so. Imagine being able to think, speak and imagine, but not able to do basic bodily functions like walk, changing clothes, using the bathroom or eating alone. For him, life has lost all meaning in his state, and it would be torture alone to simply envisualize the rest of his life in this way. Any judge who would rule in opposition for his motion, I would deem cruel and barbaric. The only qualm I have about his case was that his suicide was to be by starvation, and not by some other quicker, less painful way of death.
To conclude, I believe the autonomy of life is the most vital characteristic of all when considering one's right to live. If any rational person seeks to end their life, who are you to say no? Will you be judge and savior(but you know, in a negative way), condemning them to live? To deny them that right, is to prolong their pain, to torture. Could you find it in your heart to be so cruel?
Very powerfully put Shawn. Your view is strongly supported by the cases of Gillian Bennett and Chris Rossiter. I also like the phrase "judge and saviour" to describe how we tend to make decisions in these types of scenarios. What about someone who has no autonomy, i.e. in a vegetative state? Do we then have to play judge and saviour, and how?
DeleteDid the exact same thing as Mark........clicked 'publish' and lost the entire thing. But to summarise:
ReplyDeleteA depressed person should not be allowed to take their own life, as with Kerrie. Especially not when they have already attempted suicide nine times within the last year - how can it not occur to a doctor to provide the patient with some psychological help? It is a well-known fact that depression is treatable; in other words, death is not the only way out.
When it comes to a perfectly rational person however, such as Christian, I think their autonomy should be fully respected. Especially when there is a justifiable reason, such as being a quadriplegic, and not being able to carry out any acts of worth in your life, diminishing any form of value.
Gillian's situation is slightly more blurred, as I know elderly people with dementia who are living perfectly happy, valuable lives. The transition from sanity to dementia was difficult however, as is the experience of being forgotten for loved ones. My gut feeling says no, however I recognise that it is very situational. In all honesty though, I do not think I could go along with allowing someone I loved to take their own life to avoid dementia, however selfish that may be.
Finally--someone who is taking the opposing stance. I think you are right in this last point: it can be very traumatic to witness someone you love dying "before their time" when you feel you can be there to provide emotional support and love (and yet they prefer dying over your caring for them). This might be why assisted suicide laws in given countries are very strict; a patient must be deemed terminally ill by at least 2 doctors, and the patient must write 2 separate affidavits specifying they are in a completely rational frame of mind in requesting an "early death."
DeleteAfter reading the articles, my normally strong and liberal views on suicide and assisted suicide have been wavering a little. My first reaction to the advanced directive case of suicide was that the woman somehow legally obtained the ability to take her life, perhaps even on a whim, to use the phrase Anahi used, and was somehow able to oblige medical staff to not do anything about it. Besides recognizing these facts, my instinct was to think it was slightly questionable and seemed to legitimize an act that, within that context, did not seem to be that legitimate – it was stated that she was suffering from depression over her inability to have a child. While depression in itself is a clinical condition and would definitely have reduced the quality of her life substantially, since the depression was linked so intimately to a particular situation she did not like, it is possible that some sort of solution to the situation could have increased the quality of her life dramatically. For example, still being able to have a baby by adopting a child, etc. Instead, she was able to end her life in a legitimate way that prevented even doctors from trying to medically help her, which seems like a decision she could’ve made in a moment of irrationality.
ReplyDeleteHowever, she had created an advanced will in this case, and so there is some evidence to say that this decision was not entirely made on a whim, as there was premeditation and anticipation of it.
This leads me to believe that autonomy should be respected in all cases, especially if there is evidence of having premeditated the decision. There will always be some debate as to how ‘rational’ a person’s decision is or whether they are in the ‘right frame of mind’, but I feel as though that debate just translates to ‘Does the person’s decision conform to an external standard of legitimacy and rationality? If it doesn’t, it is not rational and the person is not in their correct frame of mind, and autonomy does not have to be respected.’ This is wrong in many ways – the point of autonomy, as Deeley pointed out in class, is to be able to make decisions without needing them to be objectively understood by everyone around them, and to deny autonomy when a person’s decisions doesn’t conform to an external standard is self-refuting. Furthermore, I think a person’s autonomy should be respected even further if there is evidence of the person having considered their decision for a long time and reaching this conclusion, as, not only will they feel this decision is ultimately the best for them, but they will also be unhappy insofar as their wishes are not respected while they are living, which will diminish the quality of their life further.
However, I do feel slightly uneasy about the concept of legitimizing suicide using advance directives, because of the slight possibility that using one of those and ultimately committing suicide could just be one long whim, and if the person hadn’t committed suicide, might actually have had a longer and happier life afterwards. This leads me to believe that in order for autonomy to be completely respected, there needs to be some degree of medical seriousness to a situation that diminishes the quality of their life. For example, I do not think a stressed out university student should be able to take their life and legally forbid doctors from helping her, because it is quite obvious that there are ways to deal with stress and to be happier with one’s life at university and suicide is most certainly not the ideal way out. I don’t necessarily think the autonomy needs to be respected so much here, because it appears that the student has not considered every aspect of the situation, and it is not so much about her decision not meeting an external standard of rationality as the idea that she does not know about many aspects of her situation.
You raise all good point Maddie. If you read what I wrote in reply to Ariana, there are indeed strict requirements and prerequisites in place (in some countries anyway) to limit the ease with which one can request assisted suicide.
DeleteI personally hold the conviction that the right to die fundamentally respects our status as autonomous beings with the potential of rational thought. I reject the belief, religious or otherwise, that the endeavour to make life-altering –or in this case life-ending– decisions of which you are the sole beneficiary should be policed or hindered by others.
ReplyDeleteIn many cases, I find that the right to commit suicide is even more contentious than that of assisted suicide, and, as this perplexes me, I chose to focus on that particular issue. It is a widely-held view that the root of suicidal thoughts is depression, and while I appreciate the recognition that this is a legitimate mental illness, the argument that it is a) infallibly curable with the right treatment and b) the only mental illness that can lead to suicide, trivialises both the issue of suicide and mental illness. Living with a mental illness can, in certain cases, be a debilitating experience of life-long suffering. Even with the right clinical attention, it often entails long-term prescriptions of medication and therapy, neither of which guarantee the fast-track road to recovery or –in the case of medication– are without considerable side-effects. While mental illness may not be considered with the same gravity as a physical/terminal illness, the repercussions on quality of life are certainly there. There are numerous sufferers of quite severe mental illnesses who are not institutionalised, and considered fit to be a part of society and allowed to make decisions that presuppose a rational way of thinking. I think that compassion and access to effective treatment are essential for all those who live with mental illnesses, but to write them off as incapable of assessing the extrinsic quality of life denies them the fundamental autonomy that many of us consider a human right.
This was something of a tangent, but I felt that it was important in order to establish my argument. In my opinion, the case against suicide is inconsistent with the other expectations of rationality and decision-making that –except for in extreme cases of mental patients– are placed upon individuals as functional members of society and, above all, human beings.
Rachel, the only question I have is about the phrase "sole beneficiary" in describing the role of the person wanting to die. What does this mean--that the only person who benefits is the person who dies? No implications at all for other people? Would they perhaps suffer (if not benefit)? Think of family, friends, even the community. Kant would claim there is no such thing as an action that does not have implications for the wider scope of humanity.
DeleteUsing the three articles "Aussie wins right to die," "Woman's suicide by living will," and "Gillian Bennett" as support, what is your personal view regarding the right to die.
ReplyDeleteMy point of view on this issue asserts the claim that certain criteria need to be fulfilled in order to grant someone autonomy regarding human life. These criteria are largely based on the assumption that the needs of the many trump the needs of the few, especially when an outcome regarding the taking of life can have widespread repercussions.
The first criteria is the underlying basis behind the rest of my argument and if confirmed, negates the need for the other criteria. The criteria is; proof that the person in question has complete and total control over their mental faculties and is able to demonstrate significant intelligence and rational thought. The same amount as would be necessary to serve as a functioning member of society. So long as this is fulfilled, it indicates that the person willing to take their life has carefully considered the decision and its consequences. In short, if you are a fully rational human being, you deserve autonomy. All three of the cases discussed here are examples of rational people making rational decisions and hence were justified according to this criteria.
If in the case that after psychological evaluation, it is determined that the person who wishes to take their own life is not of sound mind, other factors need to be considered. The first is the presence of any authorised agreement made at a time of mental stability such as a living will that asserts that the person does indeed want to die. If a document such as this is not present and yet the patient believes they want to end their lives, a utilitarian approach is necessary. If a medical or psychological report comes to the conclusion that there can be no change in the conditions that led to them making this decision, and if the prolonging of their life will only cause them more pain, not to mention the possible effects it would have on the relatives and friends who would burden the cost of keeping them alive. A committee of those highly esteemed for their rational thought must weigh up all of the consequences that could arise from either decision and make the choice that would lead to the least amount of unhappiness.
Most, if not all patients who voluntarily ask for death will fall under the criteria mentioned above and will have their autonomy respected. This textual flowchart was made to show my rationale for largely choosing autonomy over any other philosophy in these cases instead of blindly advocating one side because of an emotional response as most cases on this issue are dealt with today legally.
You've been very rational Anirudh, in bringing us through various stages of thinking about how to react to a person who wishes to die prematurely. Am I right in thinking that in cases where the patient is in a coma you would then go immediately to the utilitarian approach since the patient is unable to exercise autonomy/rationality?
ReplyDelete