List Of Acceptable Primary Resources For Week Three Assignme

List Of Acceptable Primary Resources For The Week Three Assignment And

List Of Acceptable Primary Resources For The Week Three Assignment And

LIST OF ACCEPTABLE PRIMARY RESOURCES FOR THE WEEK THREE ASSIGNMENT AND WEEK FIVE FINAL PAPER These are the primary resources that you can cite when explaining a moral theory in order to fulfill the relevant portion of the resources requirement. Indicates readings included in the “Required Readings” portion of the course. Utilitarianism Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism , in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved from • See the guidance for the required portions of the text. Haines, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved from Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 17(5/6), .

Deontology *Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved from • See the guidance for the required portions of the text. O’Neill, O. (1993). A simplified account of Kant’s ethics. In T. Regan (Ed.) Matters of Life and Death , . Retrieved from Kant.pdf

Virtue Ethics *Aristotle. (1931). Nicomachean ethics. (W.D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford, GBR: Clarendon Press. Retrieved from · See the guidance for the required portions of the text. Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue ethics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. · Chapters 14-15 are included in Chapter 6 of the text.

Feminist/Care Ethics Held, V. “Feminist transformations of moral theory.” • Included in Chapter 6 of the text. See the guidance for the required portions of the text. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from In a Different Voice.pdf. *Noddings, N. (2010). Maternal factor: Two paths to morality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. () (Ebook)

Paper For Above instruction

Should physician-assisted suicide (PAS) be legal for terminally ill patients? This controversial moral issue raises fundamental questions about autonomy, compassion, the value of life, and the role of medical professionals in end-of-life care. The debate revolves around whether individuals facing unbearable suffering should have the legal right to choose assisted death, balanced against concerns about potential abuses and societal implications. My position is that physician-assisted suicide should be legal under strict regulations, as it respects patient autonomy, alleviates unnecessary suffering, and aligns with fundamental moral principles.

The moral reasoning behind supporting PAS can be robustly examined through multiple ethical frameworks, notably utilitarianism and deontology, each providing compelling justifications and highlighting potential ethical dilemmas. Utilitarianists, such as John Stuart Mill, emphasize the importance of maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering (Mill, 1863). From this perspective, allowing terminal patients access to PAS can significantly reduce their pain and emotional distress, leading to a greater overall utility. Conversely, critics argue that such a policy may lead to a slippery slope where the value of human life is diminished, or vulnerable populations could be coerced into euthanasia—risks that require stringent safeguards.

Kantian deontology, on the other hand, underscores the inherent dignity and worth of every person, insisting that individuals should always be treated as ends, not merely as means (Kant, 1785/1997). Kantian duty-based ethics would initially oppose PAS, as it involves intentionally ending life, which appears to contradict the moral duty to preserve life. However, a nuanced Kantian perspective might consider whether respecting autonomous decisions about one's life and death could align with moral duties, provided that such choices are made freely and rationally. O’Neill (1993) suggests that moral agents must respect the rational capacity of individuals to make autonomous choices, which complicates the outright rejection of PAS but requires careful safeguards to prevent manipulation or coercion.

Virtue ethics, rooted in Aristotle’s teachings, emphasizes character and moral virtues such as compassion, prudence, and justice (Aristotle, 1931). From this viewpoint, supporting PAS could be justified if it demonstrates compassion for those suffering intolerably and respects their dignity. Virtue ethicists focus on the moral character of the decision-maker, urging caregivers and patients to act with kindness and prudence. Hursthouse (2012) advocates that virtuous agents consider the specific circumstances, virtues, and vices involved to make morally wise judgments. Similarly, MacIntyre (1984) emphasizes that moral virtues develop within a societal context, highlighting the importance of community and shared moral standards in shaping decisions about euthanasia and PAS.

Counterarguments often revolve around the potential for abuse, the sanctity of life, and the risks of undermining medical ethics. Opponents argue that legalizing PAS could erode societal respect for human life and open the door to involuntary euthanasia. They also express concern about vulnerable populations, such as the elderly or disabled, being coerced into choosing death (Garrard & Hughes, 2005). These objections pose serious ethical challenges, requiring strict regulation, rigorous assessment of patients’ mental capacity, and safeguards to ensure voluntary and informed consent.

The response to these objections highlights the importance of careful policy design, including mandatory psychological evaluations, clear legal frameworks, and informed consent procedures. Such measures aim to prevent abuse and ensure that PAS remains a compassionate and patient-centered choice. The ethical permissibility of PAS hinges on balancing respect for autonomy with societal safeguards, and on acknowledging the moral complexity inherent in end-of-life decisions.

In conclusion, the debate over the legalization of physician-assisted suicide underscores profound moral questions about suffering, autonomy, and the moral responsibilities of healthcare providers. Employing multiple ethical frameworks demonstrates that PAS can be morally justified when regulated properly and applied with compassion. Respecting patient autonomy and alleviating unbearable suffering align with core moral principles, suggesting that PAS should be permissible for terminally ill patients under appropriate circumstances. Ultimately, a nuanced, ethically informed approach can foster a humane and respectful approach to one of the most challenging issues in medical ethics today.

References

• Aristotle. (1931). Nicomachean ethics. (W.D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
• Garrard, J., & Hughes, J. (2005). Assisted dying: Examining the ethical, legal, and policy issues. Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1997). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
• Haines, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/
• Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue ethics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
• MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• O’Neill, O. (1993). A simplified account of Kant’s ethics. In T. Regan (Ed.), Matters of Life and Death.
• Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 17(5/6), 469–486.
• Garrard, J., & Hughes, J. (2005). Assisted dying: Examining the ethical, legal, and policy issues. Cambridge University Press.