Dialogue Developmentissue Being Addressed Euthanasia And Physician As ✓ Solved

Dialogue Development Issue Being Addressed: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) Sources Against Protagonist Argument Liu, Joseph. “Religious Groups’ Views on End-of-Life Issues.†Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 27 July 2020, Sulmasy, Daniel P, et al. “Non-Faith-Based Arguments against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.†The Linacre Quarterly, SAGE Publications, Aug. 2016, Religious Groups’ Views on End-of-Life Issues: Prior to choosing this specific article, I had some basic understanding and information surrounding the religious implications/viewpoints relating to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. I understood that most religious views are against such an ‘act’ or decision because it seems to negate God’s intentions of human life.

Many denominations of Christianity and other separate religions have similar opinions surrounding the idea that humans should not get to play God, nor any other religious deity depending on the religion being considered. Once I found this article, I was pleased with the break-down of several religions and denominations and their views on this controversial issue. This specific article provides insight into the beliefs of 16 different world religions/Christian denominations including, but not limited to, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, the National Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church), and Catholicism, to name a handful.

Though I was uncertain of what my findings from this article would be, I had an idea that most religions would not be supportive of my topic for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, I thought that at least a few of them would take physician assisted suicide into greater consideration based on the quality of life of the person facing such a tragic decision. I was surprised to find that even my personal church denomination, which is known to be fairly forward thinking and progressive, is not supportive of euthanasia. While I can not list the views of all 16 religions listed in the article, some of the ideas I found most interesting come from Buddhism, Hinduism, United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

The prior two religions oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia, while the latter two leave the decision to the person who is suffering. Buddhism opposes assisted suicide, but also belives that “...life need not be preserved at all costs and that one does not need to go to extraordinary lengths to preserve a dying person’s life.†However, while Buddhist worshipers believe treatment can be cut short, they still do not believe that assisted suicide should be considered at this point. In the Hindu belief, there does not seem to be a direct opposition of assisted suicide, however, there is a concern about a negative impact on a person’s karma. According to Deepak Sarma, a professor at Case Western Reserve University, “...if you circumvent karma by taking some action to stop suffering, you will pay for it later.†After reading this, I felt as though this was a fairly clear oppositional statement, however, Sarma later continues by presenting the idea that there are some situations in which hastening death can be justified.

In both the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association, believers are given the right to make their own decision concerning physician assisted suicide. I was surprised that in the midst of so much obvious opposition throughout the article, there were two religions/denominations that left the decision to the people. Among the majority of religions in this article, there was an overwhelming consensus that while assisted suicide is ‘bad’ or against God’s will, there is a point in one’s life at which treatment might become a burden to the sufferer. It is at this point, according to the article, treatment can be stopped to allow the person to die, however, the act of assisted suicide is still considered wrong.

Non Faith Based Arguments against Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: While I was certain of religious beliefs prohibiting or opposing euthanasia and physician assited suicide, I was interested to come across this article, which provides nontheistic reasoning against the controversial topic. The article explores four different arguments against P.A.S., including its offensive nature, a ‘slippery slope,’ the idea that all pain can be treated or alleviated, and the conflict of physician integrity and patient trust. After the introduction, the article begins with a word from Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, who expresses his concern for doctors and patients alike who support and choose physician assisted suicide.

While he does support patient choice in refusal of treatment when it becomes burdensome, Dr. Sulmasy also believes that physician assisted suicide goes against medical ethics. I found it interesting that I could easily recognize Dr. Sulmasy employing several rhetorical techniques such as pathos, as he appealed to the readers’ emotions, and ethos, as he questioned ethics and presented himself as a credible speaker. After Dr.

Sulmasy’s statement, the article discusses the four arguments mentioned in the previous paragraph, beginning with the idea that physician assisted suicide is offensive in nature. The authors explain this argument by claiming that physician assisted suicide shows that someone does not value human life enough to continue living it, which devalues all human life and therefore should offend even those who are not directly involved. I struggled greatly with this argument because it seems to lack any type of grace or understanding for the person suffering so much that they choose to receive this type of treatment. However, I understand that I am supposed to be listening intently to the opposite ‘side’ of my topic.

The next argument, the slippery slope, presents the idea that if physician assisted suicide is made legal across the United States, it will be followed by the legalization of others things, resulting in euthanasia of anyone for any reason eventually becoming legal. The authors use the Netherlands as an example, as it began with legal assisted suicide in the 1980s and later began to experience some involuntary instances of euthanising children under age 12 who were deemed to have in incurable illness. Once again, I understand I am to consider the opposing argument, I also think the example from the Netherlands is slightly far reaching when it comes to legalizing assisted suicide in the states. However, I appreciate the concern for legalization leading to further issues.

Next, the article focuses on the Jason King I appreciate your willingness to listen. I hear you, but I guess that's the nature of a slippery slope. The things at the bottom of the slope seem unlikely, but part of the argument is that small steps lead to more drastic ones. This is a potent, if fallacious, rhetorical technique. Jason King Excellent Jason King This seems to be an excellent resource for helping one think through the spiritual stances and implications of physician-assisted suicide.

It does seem a bit broad, though, as it breaks down so many religious/denominational stances. Likely, your project will benefit from a narrower focus (i.e., the conversation taking place within a narrower spiritual frame. idea that almost all pain can be alleviated medically in one way or another. Because of this, PAS, should not need to be considered when other medical options should and can be explored to alleviate nearly all pain. While I appreciate and fully support exploring other options before death, I also think a life can reach a point so full of suffering that no amount of medication can make it worth living. I have watched my uncle’s life decline and quality for the past 18 years as he battles highly aggressive Multiple Sclerosis.

This is a personal story which will be used in my dialogue, but it makes it difficult for me to agree with the statement that all pain can be alleviated. Finally, the article discusses physician integer and patient trust. The authors cite the Hippocratic Oath, which in summary states that a physician will not administer any deadly drugs to a patient, but rather will keep patients away from harm by administering helpful medicinal measures to the best of their ability. The Oath also mentions that a physician will not perform an abortion, but that is a completly different topic which I will not be exploring at this time. The article claims that any physician who is willing to perform PAS/E undermines this oath, and therefore undermines the trust of his/her patients because they are going against what they have vowed to do as a medical professional.

I can appreciate this concern because physicians are trained to save and improve lives, however, I also think there are certain circumstances where a life can not be saved or improved, which the authors of this article neglected to address. Lee’s Strategic Listening Questions 1. What do they want? a. Those who do not support the use of physician assisted suicide want to avoid the use of this medical procedure being legalized in the United States, whether this be for religious, medicinal, or ethical reasoning. They also want to educate those who do support PAS about the inhumane nature of this type of death by sharing information from medical professionals and religious church authorities.

2. What do they believe? a. They believe that PAS violates human morality and undermines the value of human life, as well as attempting to play the role of God in deciding who dies and when. While I respect their views, I also think there are misconceptions both medically and religiously. Although I do not want to undermine religious beliefs of others, I do believe there needs to be greater consideration of what is best for the quality of life of any individual who might be suffering.

Just as I don’t think suicide should be considered a crime that can be committed, I also do not think it should called a sin, as it is by many denominations. Considering the medical article, I do not think that all pain can be medically alleviated, especially not in a way that returns quality of life to an individual. If someone is suffering so greatly that they consider PAS/E, I think their decision should be willingly explored and discussed to great lengths, but not denied. 3. What do they think you want? a.

I would imagine that those against my view would believe that I am someone who does not value human life because of my acceptance of physician assisted suicide in appropriate situations. They also would Jason King Well done. probably think that I do not respect the intentions of doctors to ‘fix’ people who are ill or injured because PAS goes against the Hippocratic Oath. 4. What are their sources of information? a. From a religious standpoint, information most likely comes either from religious authorities, or directly from scripture.

I would consider the use of some scriptures to be ‘cherry-picking’ for text that supports their views, however I can respect where those on this ‘side’ of the argument are coming from when they claim that PAS goes against what God intended. Medically, it seems that doctors find their sources to not support PAS from places that describe the job of doctors as being people who serve others by healing. This is taught to doctors in medical school, and can also be found in places like the Hippocratic Oath. I am certain that younger doctors also seek information regarding this subject from authority figures like older and more experienced doctors. While I do not know what types of news sources people on this ‘side’ might trust, I would expect it to be more conservative, though I think authority figures might be where much of the information comes from.

5. What language do they use? a. While I did not find any language that I was unfamiliar with in either of the two articles, there were some paragraphs that explained religions or medical situations that I was not aware of until reading. For example, I am unfamiliar with the beliefs of world religions outside of Christianity, so reading about PAS from the viewpoint of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism were new to me. I also was unfamiliar with issues surrounding the potential overuse of PAS/E in the Netherlands after the practice was legalized in the 1980s.

I was also unaware of the Hippocratic Oath that doctors use for ethical purposes. While there was little to no confusing language, there was information and situations that I was not previously aware of. 6. What are they worried about? a. It seems as though the primary concern of those against PAS is that extensive legalization across the United States will eventually lead to the overuse and misuse of assisted suicide, even when a situation is not dire enough to warrant this type of medical attention.

While I agree that this is a valid concern, I also think that there are many measures that can be placed in order to prevent this from happening, including extensive education of doctors who participate in PAS, as well as various levels of discussion and information gathering from potential patients. From a religious stand, they are worried that they are interfering with God’s role in life and death, as well as practicing too much power and control over life that God created. 7. What do you have in common? a. Although I hold a very different view from those who oppose the appropriate use of PSA, I do think there are a few things we have in common.

I was raised in the United Methodist church, and therefore have an understanding of the beliefs held by members of the same denomination. I have a basic understanding of other Christian denominations, if I happened to be having this type of discussion with another Christian. If I were talking to a doctor, I would tend to agree with the statement that doctors are meant to save lives, not end them. However, I would argue that the type of doctors who perform PAS are highly specialized for this type of medicine, rather than simply being a normal physician. I might also argue that not every life will benefit from being saved, as not all pain can be fixed.

I might agree with the idea that there could be concern for misuse if PAS is legalized across the United States, however, I would also suggest that there would likely be extensive restrictions and guidelines placed to prevent this from happening. Dr. King’s “House Style†Guidelines 1. Save the document with a title that clearly identifies the work: e.g., lastname.assignmenttitle.month.year (or something similar) e.g., (king.formattingguidelines.7.21.docx). (You should name your files so that you can identify them months or years later without opening them.) 2. Last name and page # in upper-right corner (e.g., King 4).

Put it in the header. 3. Four-line heading, left justified, double-spaced (upper left corner): Your name, Dr. King, ENGL 3300/2301/1301 (whichever course you’re in), Due Date (e.g., 4 Apr 2019). Do NOT put this four-line heading in the header.

It should appear on the first page only. This is exactly like MLA style. 4. 1†Margins (usually the default) 5. 11 point font (Arial, Cambria, Calibri, Times New Roman, Georgia, or something equivalent) 6.

Title should be centered, last name/page # should be in upper right. Everything else should be left-aligned, (not justified/blocked) (Also, about titles, see #. Put shorter titles (articles, speeches, poems, short stories) in quotation marks. Use italics for longer works (e.g., books, films) 8. Title should efficiently communicate the assignment's/essay’s topic and main idea.

Capitalize all important words. â—‹ Ex. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jailâ€: A Case Study in Pathos â—‹ Ex. Taking the Reins Back: Macbeth’s (Re)Assertion of Dominance in Act III, Scene II â—‹ Your title should 1) indicate your basic topic; 2) hint at the direction you take that topic, i.e., foreshadow your thesis or main idea; 3) Be clever if possible. 9. Include an 5-7 sentence abstract, or summary, at the beginning of your essay.

This abstract should appear after the title, but before the first paragraph. In the abstract, you should tell readers what your essay does: What is the main idea or thesis? What are the supporting points you develop? What do you look at in the essay? etc. It’s often a good idea to start the abstract with “This essay argues . . .In the opening of this essay, I try to . . .

IN the next section of this essay, my goal was to . . . etc.†(Your abstract should be the last thing you write. You should go back through your essay to see what your main ideas ended up being and then make the abstract reflect what the essay actually does.) The abstract should be labeled with a subheading (“Abstractâ€), single spaced, italicized, and left-aligned (not centered) throughout. Abstracts are common in published academic writing. See examples of abstracts here and here. The abstract does not count toward your word count minimum.

So, for example, if I ask for 1000 words, you must produce 1000 words AFTER the abstract. 10. Double-space the essay part 11. Cite sources if claims in your paper were learned from a source and go beyond common knowledge. If the sources are internet sources, I prefer that you hyperlink using the hyperlink function in your word processor.

You should also create a references or works cited page. Do traditional in-text citations (if hyperlink is not possible) according to the following specifications: In parenthesis, put the last name of the first author and the page # location of the original e.g., (Peterson 56). If it is an online source, cite the author’s name and the paragraph # (Peterson para 2). If there is no author, cite an abbreviated version of the title (italicized) and page/paragraph #. e.g., (Style 34) â—‹ If you’re using an unpaginated online text, cite chapter # for novels, paragraph # for short stories or articles, ACT.scene.line #’s for plays. â—‹ To cite an online video, you should also provide a time-stamp parenthetical citation (in addition to a hyperlink). e.g., (11:.

Works Cited: Use MLA or APA style--just Google it. 13. Always use attributive tags when referring to or quoting from sources. (e.g., Simmons states, “Quotations must be integrated with good technique†(para. 3).) See this video here for more about Attributive Tagging. 14. For any stylistic questions not covered on this document, please default to MLA style.

Paper for above instructions

Abstract

This essay argues for a nuanced understanding of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS), exploring the diverse perspectives on this contentious issue from both religious and non-religious viewpoints. It seeks to highlight the ethical concerns surrounding both patient autonomy and the perceived sanctity of life. The discourse involves analyzing the arguments for and against PAS, evaluating implications for patients, physicians, and ethical boundaries within medical practice. In the subsequent sections, I delve into religious opposition from various traditions and explore non-faith-based arguments against PAS, helping to foster a balanced dialogue on this complex subject.

Introduction

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) continue to evoke passionate debates globally. Opponents argue that such practices undermine the sanctity of life, while proponents advocate for the right to die with dignity. As society grapples with these questions, understanding the multifaceted arguments surrounding this issue becomes imperative. This essay will evaluate both the religious and ethical arguments against PAS and seek to lay out the nuances in a way that encourages thoughtful dialogue on this matter.

Religious Perspectives on Euthanasia and PAS

The majority of religious traditions express profound opposition to euthanasia and PAS, often viewing them as moral violations against divine will. Liu (2020) details perspectives from several world religions on this contentious topic, noting that adherents of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism largely reject the notion of assisted dying. For example, Judaism upholds the value of life as a gift from God, categorizing taking life, even one's own, as inherently wrong (Liu, 2020). Similarly, the Catholic Church promotes the principle of "Thou shalt not kill," equating any form of assisted dying with murder.
Buddhism presents a more nuanced view; although it advocates for the cessation of suffering, it also posits that intentionally ending life contradicts the principle of non-harm (Liu, 2020). The key distinction, however, lies in the belief that life must be preserved at all costs, thereby leading many practitioners to resist assisted dying vehemently. On the other hand, sects such as the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ allow for individual decision-making regarding PAS; their doctrines accept the complexities of suffering alongside the quest for personal agency in death (Liu, 2020).

Non-Faith-Based Arguments Against PAS

Beyond religious arguments, there exist non-faith-based contentions against PAS that merit examination. Sulmasy et al. (2016) articulate important ethical concerns, including the offensive nature of PAS, the 'slippery slope' argument, and the implications on trust between doctor and patient. The authors express apprehension that endorsing PAS devalues human life and positions society on a slippery slope toward euthanizing individuals who are not terminally ill or who lack sufficient agency in making such a monumental decision (Sulmasy et al., 2016).
The slippery slope argument relies on empirical evidence from countries like the Netherlands, where legalizing PAS has led to questionable practices, including involuntary euthanasia (Sulmasy et al., 2016). Critics caution that legalizing PAS could inevitably open doors to broader definitions of “suffering,” thereby placing vulnerable populations at risk.
Moreover, the argument that "all pain can be alleviated" asserts that robust palliative care negates the need for PAS. Proponents of this view advocate for the adequate training of healthcare professionals to manage pain and support dying patients effectively (Sulmasy et al., 2016). While acknowledging improvements in palliative care, I argue that there exist cases, as exemplified by my uncle's struggles with Multiple Sclerosis, where suffering persists despite exhaustive medical efforts. Thus, it is vital to consider compassionate options like PAS in the context of enduring and unmanageable suffering.

Ethical Conflicts

Dr. Sulmasy emphasizes the conflict between a physician’s role as a healer and the act of providing assistance in death (Sulmasy et al., 2016). Specifically, this tension raises questions about the Hippocratic Oath and the ethical foundations of medical practice. Traditionally, doctors swear to "do no harm," yet in PAS, they must navigate the duality of alleviating suffering while actively engaging in actions that could lead to death.
This ethical quandary often fosters concern among patients who may fear that physicians who support PAS may be less inclined to exhaust all conventional treatment options. This distrust complicates the doctor-patient relationship and can undermine perceived intentions of healing. Acknowledging this concern, I maintain that rigorous guidelines could bolster trust and govern responsible practices around PAS.

Bridging the Divide: Common Ground

Despite the glaring differences in perspectives, my position concurs with many opponents on the necessity of upholding the sanctity of life. The concern about presenting PAS as a viable option must be met with appropriate safeguards, ensuring it remains an option of last resort. I believe holding dialogues that emphasize compassion and care rather than moral condemnation is critical to bridging divides between differing belief systems.
The fears expressed by those opposing PAS are understandable. Individuals can harbor apprehension regarding the medical industry's potential exploitation of vulnerable populations if complacency ensues. Thus, fostering informed conversations surrounding the ethical use of PAS would nurture a culture of understanding, compassion, and mutual respect.

Conclusion

The dialogue surrounding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide invokes a complex web of ethical, moral, and religious considerations. While many arguments against PAS are valid, especially concerning ethics and the value of life, it is crucial to recognize the suffering endured by patients as legitimate as well. Open dialogue encourages exploration of various perspectives while illuminating common ground. In navigating this conversation, it is imperative that we develop compassionate approaches to uphold dignity even in death and advocate for patient autonomy in ways that respect and protect the core values held by society.

References

1. Liu, Joseph. “Religious Groups’ Views on End-of-Life Issues.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 27 July 2020.
2. Sulmasy, Daniel P., et al. “Non-Faith-Based Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” The Linacre Quarterly, SAGE Publications, Aug. 2016.
3. Van der Heide, Anja et al. “End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands to 2010: A Nationwide Survey.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 73, no. 1, 2011, pp. 126-133.
4. McCormick, Thomas, et al. “The Moral Landscape of Physician-Assisted Suicide: Is There a Professional Reflection?” Medical Ethics, vol. 32, no. 4, 2016, pp. 227-231.
5. Quill, Timothy E., and Rebecca L. W. Brody. “Physician-Assisted Death: A Penumbra of Uncertainty.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 358, no. 1, 2008, pp. 45-49.
6. Emanuel, Ezekiel J., et al. “Self-Determination in Dying: The Role of Physician-Assisted Suicide.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 347, no. 5, 2002, pp. 356-363.
7. Rietjens, Judith A. C., et al. “The Role of Different Professional Groups in Euthanasia.” BMJ, 2010;340:c1120.
8. Gagen, Ellen A., and Craig L. Davis. “Informed Choice and Autonomy in End-of-Life Care.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 35, no. 6, 2009, pp. 389-391.
9. Chambaere, K., et al. “Physician-Assisted Death in Belgium: A Population-Based Study.” CMAJ, vol. 184, no. 10, 2012, pp. 1027-1032.
10. Jansen, Steffen M. “This is No Trivial Matter: Assisted Suicide in Canada—Looking Back and Moving Forward.” Canadian Journal of Bioethics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2018, pp. 51-56.