Physician-Assisted Suicide

Physician-Assisted Suicide

PHI208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Physician-Assisted Suicide

Part 1: Ethical Question

Does a person with a terminal condition have an ethical right to physician-assisted suicide? (Anderson, 2018) 

Part 2: Introduction

Dying is a tough subject for anybody to cope. The majority of folks do not choose to reflect on it at the beginning of finding out that they are terminally ill. Each story has two sides, and we as people tend to jump to assumptions on whether physician-assisted suicide is ethically or morally true or false. Suicide defined as the process of murdering yourself. Physician-Assisted Suicide is defined as also a suicide but with the help of a physician. Regarding terminating a life, many aspects considered. There are a few individuals that interpret the physician-assisted suicide plan as being ethically wrong. Countless individuals exist day to day in much agony that they cannot stand it and they as well have been provided with an approximate amount of time on just how long they have left to live before they die.

Countless times, you will find that doctors are only thinking about physician-assisted suicide after the patient identified with an incurable sickness, and their pain will get worse. A smaller situation happens when the sick person does not hurt from something fatal. They think that they do not possess the will to keep going on with what discomfort they have, whether it is psychological or physical. In these situations, you should ask yourself what the main moral is that can originate from the circumstances. These kinds of choices frequently go into the territory of utilitarianism and considering what will produce the greatest pleasure. Founded on utilitarian philosophy, something that would give these suffering individuals the utmost satisfaction is to have no pain. For some of these individuals, the most significant way to achieve this is to ask for physician-assisted suicide. When thinking about which side, you are on you need to look at each side of the morals and ethics when selecting to die or not to die.

Part 3: Explanation of the Ethical Theory

Folks are frequently baffled regarding the word, utilitarianism, and the majority of individuals are not sure on what way they can apply it after they find out what the definition is. In our textbook, it defines utilitarianism as “a consequentialist ethical theory that holds that morally right actions, laws, or policies are those whose consequences contain the greatest positive value and least negative value compared to the consequences of available alternatives” (Thames, 2018, Ch 3 Key Terms). Utilitarianism was the first to be discussed by the philosopher, Jeremy Bentham. It founded on whatever generates the most significant volume of pleasure and the smallest amount of unhappiness. A significant thing to think of concerning utilitarianism is that folks have unique attributes that cause them to be content or satisfied. One individual could cherish something that someone else does not.

John Stuart Mill tells us that, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” (Mill, 2007, sec. 2.2). Mill’s described the essential values of the utilitarian theory as the movements are in the correct amount as they encourage happiness, and incorrect if they do not.

The utilitarian theory goes along with the concept that desire and the independence from pain are the things that are needed in our lifetime, and that all beneficial things that are helpful only for the advancement of comfort and avoidance of pain. The ending that acknowledged at this point is that as extensive as the actions encourage pleasure they are right, and if the movements promote pain, uneasiness, or anger, then these actions are incorrect.

Part 4: Application of the Ethical Theory

As utilitarianism relates to physician-assisted suicide, it is understood as the choice of an individual to terminate their misery and to grant them enjoyment or contentment. John Stewart Mill thought that the high-quality of desire to an individual was their intelligence, and the lower-quality choice was the body. For an individual that is in continuous pain, it could be logically enjoyable to select to terminate the pain of their body and ask for physician- assisted suicide. Mill thought there was some degree of self-respect in this choice for the individual.

Physician-assisted suicide is hugely debatable amongst persons that speak the utilitarian theory. The principal opposition to this subject is that it is at all times immoral to murder an innocent person. The folks that are on this side of the fight wish for the individuals that are suffering to continue breathing no matter what for the reason that life is valuable, and everybody lives as long as they possibly could. Also, the doctors, members of the family, or anybody else could imagine that individuals should delay seeing if there may be some new remedies that may perhaps heal them. With all of the modern medicines and methods that are continuously developing, one of them may be the solution that could assist them in having a life with no pain till they pass away from natural causes.

You can continually have confidence in hoping for the best, and possibly the individual that is suffering will be able to get the treatment that they require to be joyful and have no pain. Nevertheless, the majority of the time the individuals that are suffering are caught in a world of agony or sadness that they cannot fight anymore. In observing these different kinds of situations as a utilitarian opinion, it helps to make it simpler to understand how permitting the individuals that are suffering to select the way that they want to die.


Anderson, J. (2018). Written Assignment Ethical Topics and Questions List. Retrieved from

Battin,M., van deer Heide, A., Ganzini, L., van der Wal, G., & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. (n.d.).

Legal physician-assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: evidence concerning the impact on patients in “vulnerable” groups. Volume 33, Issue 10. Retrieved from

Griffith, R. (2017). Courts to look again at assisted dying law. British Journal of Community

Nursing 22(5): 252-254. (3p). Retrieved from 0sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=28467248&db=cmedm

Inbadas, H., Zaman, S., Whitelaw, S., & Clark, D. (2017). Declarations on euthanasia and assisted dying. Death Studies, Vol 41(9), pp. 574-584, 11p. Retrieved from http://eds.a.e ia&bdata=JnR5cGU9MCZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d

Magelssen, M., Supphellen, M., Nortvedt, P., & Materstvedt, M. (2016). Attitudes towards assisted dying are influenced by question wording and order: A survey experiment. BMC Medical Ethics, Vol 1. Retrieved from


Mill, J. (2007). Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Retrieved from

Varelius, J.(2016). Physician-assisted dying and two senses of an incurable condition. Journal of Medical Ethics: Journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics, Vol 42(9), Sep 2016. pp. 601-604. Retrieved from




Place an Order

Plagiarism Free!

Scroll to Top