Sample Answer for PHI 413 Topic 4 DQ 2 Included After Question
Because everyone’s life is deemed valuable to God, the choice of suicide or euthanasia contradicts this and is therefore considered sin. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Initial discussion question posts should be a minimum of 200 words and include at least two references cited using APA format. Responses to peers or faculty should be 100-150 words and include one reference. Refer to the “Discussion Question Rubric” and “Participation Rubric,” located in Class Resources, to understand the expectations for initial discussion question posts and participation posts, respectively.
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: PHI 413 Topic 4 DQ 2
Title: PHI 413 Topic 4 DQ 2
As I’ve read through our discussion posts this week in both our topics, I’m again and again impressed by your willingness to be vulnerable and professional about some very difficult subjects. I’d like to use this post to summarize what I’ve seen and enjoyed this past week in both of our DQ’s.
In DQ #1, I have to say I admire your candidness in discussing the losses you have encountered, both in the workplace with patients and in your own personal lives. I am truly amazed by your stories. You are a tough, battle-hardened bunch! Thank you for doing such a great job on this topic; I not-so-secretly hope that the discussion was also somehow therapeutic if you needed it to be. It can make all the difference in the world to know someone else has gone through or is going through the same thing.
In DQ #2, what I’ve observed very often is that we think suicide, and by corollary assisted suicide and euthanasia, is sinful, but there is a strong minority of us that wrestle with why it is wrong to deny a patient the autonomy to choose that action if certain (i.e. terminal) circumstances are in place. This isn’t a tension I’ll try to resolve for you with a “magic answer,” because I see both sides and have trouble deciding myself.
This isn’t to say I’m not being biblical–I’m fully aware of the commandment not to murder–but I also am aware of the command to steward what we have while we have it. Everything we have comes from God, whether it be our loved ones or our health or even our finances, and I wonder if it is more biblical in a stewardship sense for someone who is a terminal patient to seek out a method of treatment that would steward their loved ones well by not leaving them in an impossible medical debt mess.
(Please don’t throw rocks! I’m not decided on this, just mulling it over!) In this case, then the issue is recognizing that there may be a conflict in two biblical priorities–the commandment not to murder and the principle of stewardship–and the reasoning needs to turn to which priority is more important and comes ahead of the other. (This personal thinking out loud just to give you a sample of how philosophical ethics works.)
Finally, in our second DQ we have been asking some terrific questions about the technical details of assisted suicide and what counts as assisted suicide versus what does not–this is an especially valuable part of our conversation when we consider we’re a digital classroom of active healthcare practitioners! I have genuinely enjoyed following along this part of the conversation.
All said, in the end this has been a great week. Keep up the good work–we’ve only got one week to go!
Suicide and Euthanasia are linked inextricably; yet, there are some differences in nuance between the two terms. Euthanasia is something that is at least supposed to happen with medical help, while suicide might not be.
As physician-assisted suicide continues to be a long-standing issue in US politics, I’d invite you to do a Google hunt–that is, look up one of the following names (or a new one if all of these are taken, it’ll be up to you to find the name) and share what you found on their situation and euthanasia. The goal for this particular prompt is to (a) educate ourselves on what is going on out in the world today on this topic, and (b) to invite you and others to comment on these cases.
Terry Schaivo
Charlie Gard
Judith Curren
Brittany Maynard
Sigmund Freud
Dutch child euthanasia laws
Karen Quinlan
Valentina Maureira
Betty Coumbias
Marc and Eddy Verbessem
Frank Van Den Bleeken
Timothy Bowers
Wim Distelmans
Chantal Sebire
This is in many ways a grisly subject, to be sure. I look forward to seeing what you find and how you would think ethically about the situations regarding these individuals.
Charlie Gard was a British infant born in 2016 with a rare genetic disorder called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. This condition severely affected his organs and muscles, and he was unable to breathe or move on his own. The case gained international attention as his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, fought for the chance to seek experimental treatment in the United States.
The legal battle involved disagreements between Charlie’s parents and the medical professionals at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, who believed that further treatment would not benefit Charlie and that his condition was irreversible. The courts were involved in determining whether it was in Charlie’s best interest to continue life support or to allow him to die.
Ultimately, the courts sided with the hospital, and Charlie’s life support was withdrawn in July 2017. His case raised ethical questions about parental rights, the limits of medical intervention, and the role of the state in end-of-life decisions. It also sparked discussions about the complexities surrounding euthanasia, especially in cases involving minors and severe medical conditions.
My Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations would significantly shape my perspective in contemplating Charlie Gard’s situation. Balancing the parents’ autonomy with the child’s best interests is crucial. Respecting parental wishes while ensuring the well-being of the child involves delicate decision-making.
The principles of beneficence and non-maleficence take precedence. Medical interventions aim to improve Charlie’s condition without causing undue suffering. Assessing the potential quality of life becomes critical; interventions may be ethically justifiable if they offer a chance for significant improvement.
Considering the allocation of limited medical resources is another ethical aspect. If extensive interventions are unlikely to result in meaningful improvement, ethical concerns about resource allocation may arise. Open and transparent communication with the parents, involving them in decision-making, and collaborating with the healthcare team are essential to ethical care.
Adherence to legal and ethical guidelines governing end-of-life care and parental rights in medical decision-making is essential. It’s crucial to acknowledge that ethical considerations may vary among healthcare professionals, leading to differing opinions within the medical team. The ultimate goal remains to provide compassionate and patient-centred care while respecting medical practice’s ethical principles.