hastings - Hastings Center Article 08/16/2005 03:10 PM...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
08/16/2005 03:10 PM Hastings Center Article Page 1 of 5 http://www.compassionindying.org/hastings.html Hastings Center Report January - February 2003 PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE: A CONSERVATIVE CRITIQUE OF INTERVENTION By Daniel E. Lee In the course of the years, my views with respect to the morality of physician- assisted suicide have not wavered one bit. I’m opposed to it. Strongly opposed to it. I agree with Karl Barth that “it is for God and God alone to make an end of life” and that God gives life to us “as an inalienable loan.”( 1 ) I believe that meaning and hope are possible in all of life’s situations, even in the midst of suffering. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of physicians, who are trained to preserve life, dispensing lethal drugs to be used to end life. In recent years, however, as Oregon has legalized physician-assisted suicide and other states have considered doing so, I have found myself wrestling with a very difficult question. Do those of us with deep moral reservations about the morality of physician-assisted suicide have any business using the coercive power of government to try to prevent those who disagree with us from doing what they believe is right? Are there any compelling arguments to justify placing legal roadblocks in the way of terminally ill individuals who wish to end their suffering by ending their lives, provided such decisions are made only after thoughtful, careful deliberation in an environment devoid of social pressure? When what some might do poses a significant risk to the health and well-being of others, a strong case can be made for intervention. But does rationale based on protection of those who might be harmed work in the case of physician-assisted suicide? Protecting vulnerable individuals from threats posed by others is one matter. But what if the consequences of the act are born primarily by the perpetrator of the act? One of the most frequent arguments made by those opposed to legalization –an argument with strong overtones of paternalism—holds that we always ought to intervene to prevent self-destructive behavior. But do we have either the right of the wisdom to decide what is best for other people in situations in which they are perfectly capable of making their own decisions? In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill cautions, “A person should be free to do as he likes in his own concerns, but he ought not be free to do as he likes in acting for another, under the pretext that the affairs of the other are his own affairs.” ( 2 ) A distinction is often made between hard (or strong) paternalism, which would permit intervening because of a belief that those doing the intervening know what is best for others, and soft (or weak) paternalism, which would permit intervening
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
08/16/2005 03:10 PM Hastings Center Article Page 2 of 5 http://www.compassionindying.org/hastings.html to secure an outcome consistent with the values held by those who are being coerced. Because of deficiencies in our decision making processes or failures of the
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/30/2008 for the course NURS 10010 taught by Professor Baker during the Spring '08 term at Kent State.

Page1 / 5

hastings - Hastings Center Article 08/16/2005 03:10 PM...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online