Description
Snippet
In the US as explained by CNN (2019), the issue of physician-assisted suicide has been persistent over many years. The points of contravention vary from the rightness of the act to the states in which it is allowed. The difficulty however seems to be how we interpret and define the distinction between good deaths and bad ones, in order to stay on the same page in discussions. Empirical literature points to the same fact as authors such as O’Rourke, O’Rourke, and Hudson (2017) attempt to defend euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) both on legal and professional ethics grounds. This paper intends to offer an explanation of how to distinguish between the good and bad deaths under euthanasia and PAS.
Further, the goal of this policy is to challenge the controversial arguments against the process of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and to shed light on how terminal patients can be assisted justifiably through PAS and euthanasia. The controversial arguments include, firstly, the division of justice in cases of patients who are already facing death due to terminal illnesses. When patients are not being treated equally, their principle of justice is being violated. Secondly, mistakes are present in the field of medical health, as in other fields, and one of the best ways to ensure security and guarantee for the patients and physicians is to hire more staff and more importantly, to utilize the staff to help with overseeing reviewed examinations, diagnoses and competency submissions.
(buy to read more).
Appx. 3,000 words.
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.