Question

Argue for Brock position regarding Physician-assisted suicide and why is it better than Arras position

Both Arras and Brock agree that physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is an individual right and a societal ill. They agree it is a morally acceptable practice in certain, individual cases. They also agree that negative societal consequences would probably result from making PAS a basic right of citizens in the US. The two disagree, however, in comparing the moral weight of PAS as an individual right to the moral weight of PAS as a likely societal ill. In this debate, we will argue and criticize their moral calculus In this debate, the positions of Arras and Brock will be argued as follows: Arras: PAS should not be made a right because its negative social consequences outweigh its positive individual consequences. Brock: PAS should be made a right because its positive individual consequences outweigh its negative social consequences.

Answer 1

PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE/ ACTIVE EUTHANASIA: is the voluntary termination act of one's own life by taking lethal medication with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.

THE RIGHT TO PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT SUICIDE: The debates about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician is a significant topic that concerns the people all over the world. Some people are against these legal practices because of religious and moral issues. However, I support with Brock because of their compassion and respect for the dying.

The term right to die has been interpreted as suicide, passive or active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. All these laws allow the terminally ill patients to have the right to seek lethal medication from their physicians. They should be allowed to die with diginity. It is sad to realize that these people are in excrutiating pain in the final stages of their lives and to them the only wat to end up their pain is seeking help from the physicians for assisted suicide. Moreover, through this termination act, helps to reduce financial effects on the family and can also with respect they can determine their fate by their own. It is considered to be the best medicine for them to halt the pain caused by illness which no drug can cure.

Furthermore, it creates unusual burden to the family members. It is cost effective and in reverse gives only pain to both of them. This related cost may be too much for the dying patient's family. By allowing the terminally ill patient to die, he or she can save their family members from plunging into financial debt by halting medical bills. On top of all, they have to right to die without the unnecessary cost and agony. On the otherside, people who are against this act, do not believe the dying patient have their rights to stop their sufferings and in turn increases financial burden to the family.