Reference no: EM131148509

Discussion Forum

In Discussion Forum , post your response to the following discussion question. 

Read the New York Times article on the suicide of Chester and Joan Nimitz. Was the couple justified in their decision to commit suicide?

Is suicide morally wrong in all circumstances OR is suicide a matter of personal choice, morally permissible if a person freely opts to end their life for whatever reason? Be sure to provide reasons for your answers.

Discussion Forum post.

There are several questions being asked, one question is general in nature, "Is suicide morally wrong in all circumstances or is suicide a matter of personal choice"? The second question is more specific, was the couple justified in their decision to commit suicide.

Euthanasia, being killed by a doctor, and assisted suicide, receiving help to kill oneself is morally wrong. The couple therefore was not justified to commit suicide. Life belongs to God, so taking it is wrong. Lee opposes the act of ending someone's life. According to him, God is the giver of life and not human beings. His views are based on religious beliefs. Life should be sustained at all costs even if there is no hope for recovery.

We as humans deal with the pain of the here and now. Conditions and circumstances can improve (Syme, 2008). Suffering may bring great value into our lives, we can lose that experience if taken away. Moreover, we have responsibilities to others; family members are important and consider us of value to them.

Chester and Joan Nimitz violates a natural law of principle that man's very nature is such that he has an inclination to continue in existence. Furthermore, they have a moral duty to act in keeping with that nature, it violates man's duty to God as the Giver and ultimate Owner of life.

An individual existence depends on his and others in the community. A person willingness to live in the face of hardship, sickness and suffering is a moral service to one another; you must endure hardship. This is an opportunity to teach others how to face life, to live well and die with dignity and respect. A person does not obtain joy, live a good life, only when he/she avoids hardship but when he learns to live with it. When an individual commits suicide it leaves the community a bad memory which in turn could hurt those left behind in their attempt to live.

Most of us are well aware that the Bible strictly forbids murdering anyone. In referring to the bible and the scriptures we can concluded whoever commit suicide will be judged as murderers of themselves and therefore could not reasonably expect to go to heaven.

However, the Bible reveals that people can not "murder" themselves. We can look at the Ten Commandments in Exodus chapter 20, verses 1-17 (Exodus 20:1-17). The first four Commandments specify our behavior toward God.

In conclusion, there are many other reasons to stay alive. The society has the obligation to respect life and allowing people to commit suicide undermines that fact.

References:
•Lachs, J. (2014). Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Ethical. Contemporary Debates in Bioethics (A. L. Caplan & R. Arp, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

•Lee, P. (2014). Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Not Ethical. Contemporary Debates in Bioethics (A. L. Caplan & R. Arp, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

•Syme, R. (2008). A good death: An argument for voluntary euthanasia
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

Reply to post:
Answer and defend my belief and augment:-

1) Reply to this I found your post to be very interesting, however, I see you lean more towards the deontological philosophy that Mills created. I really can't tell you if suicide is a violation of natural law of living, or if it isn't, to me it seems like the gray area between black and white. I remember the Terri Schiavo case where she was in vegetative state for about fifteen years, then finally she was disconnected from her feeding tube. As per her parents, is not what she wanted, but as per her husband is what she wanted. Her state was completely vegetative and apparently by keeping her alive in that state was violating her right-to-die. It is tough to decide whether is right or wrong, because individuals have different morals, believe in different things, some atheist that don't believe in God.

This is Discussion Forum
I need you to reply; I really disagree with her it sounds like suicide is ok with her .

2 ) Reply to this We all must agree suicide is controversial, because it involves a human life. Making the decision to end one's life must be really tough because of the consequences, controversies, and pain this act may bring. I am sure Chester and Joan Nimitz, or as their noted stated, thought about it for a very long time.

In my opinion it is hard to say if its morally right or wrong depending on the condition of the person wishing to do it. As I mentioned in my previous forum, every case is different, every case has different circumstances. Our book shows the replies between Patrick Lee and John Lachs (Section 7) and honestly they both have very good arguments in why is right to do it and why is wrong to do it.

I can't say it is morally permissible to do it because not every rule applies or exception but in today's society suicide is "mostly" not acceptable for many reasons, such as tradition, culture, religious beliefs etc. In this case, husband and wife were not demented, or suffering any mental illness, and as they stated their plan was thought out perfectly to every detail, I guess it was their choice to end their pain and sufferment.

Reference:

• Caplan, A. L., & Arp, R. (2014). 12. In Contemporary debates in bioethics. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell

In Discussion Forum,

post your response to the following discussion question.

Compare the moral principles to which Lachs and Lee appeal. Are they the same principles or are they different, and what consequences does this fact have for the issue of physician-assisted suicide? Which do you think is the proper moral principle to apply in this case? What course of action does it recommend, and why? Defend your answer

Discussion Forum

A moral principle depicts what is right or wrong. They shape the way we live and behave. Many philosophers have contributed to come up with various moral principles. For instance, Kant has tried to explain what is morally right based on the suicide subject.

John Lachs claims that many arguments do not consider the moral problems that lead people to consider euthanasia. It is a way to end pain and a hard life. According to Lachs, people have the right to kill, but it makes no sense if the right cannot be transferred. Moreover, Lach's views are on the fact that physicians share the lives of their patients. Doctors can, therefore, understand an individual's request to die based on their condition and life situation.

Lee opposes the act of ending someone's life. According to him, God is the giver of life and not human beings. His views are based on religious beliefs. Life should be sustained at all costs if there is no hope for recovery. Patrick Lee emphasizes on the recognition of committing suicide and burdensome treatment as two different aspects (Dworkin, Frey, & Bok, 1998). Assisting someone to die or committing suicide disrespect human welfare and it is morally wrong. Although we hate pain and suffering, it should not drive us into ending the life of the suffering.

In conclusion, my point of view is that both arguments seem to be similar. If we kill people who are suffering it means that the elderly and the physically challenged will not be considered in our society. Life is valuable and it should be handled with care.

References:
•Dworkin, G., Frey, R. G., & Bok, S. (1998). Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lachs, J. (2014). Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Ethical. Contemporary Debates in Bioethics

3 ) Reply to this For instance, Kant has tried to explain what is morally right based on the suicide subject.

Kant's theory certainly has a thing to say about suicide, when applied carefully and appropriately. What moral theory is that, and why do you think that each is applying that principle here? And what can we say since you think each is relying on that one principle?
  
4 ) Reply to this I don't think both arguments are similar. Lee opposes the idea of physician assisted suicide, basing on morality of life being sacred until the very end. In the other hand Lach considers PAS, suicide to be ethical since the person's autonomy has to be respected. I strongly believe every person has the right to do whatever they want with their body and life without affecting anyone. I am not encouraging suicide but this is a question for debate that will never come to a conclusion. There will always be people that oppose it and people that defend it.

5) - Reply to this Compare the moral principles to which Lachs and Lee appeal. Are they the same principles or are they different, and what consequences does this fact have for the issue of physician-assisted suicide? Comparing the principles by these two professors is like comparing water and fire, because they are two completely different opinions. While John Lachs advocates and defends PAS he also emphasizes the importance of values and morality. In his opinion and as the book states, his argument is not an open invitation to commit suicide. He also encourages to respect people's last wishes and autonomy. (Caplan & Arp 2014). In the other hand Patrick Lee totally opposes the idea of physician assisted suicide because he considers it immoral and disrespectful to human lives. His argument is that by assisting someone to die, violates the person's dignity and right to remain alive. Lee's argument states life is valuable till the very end. He also argues the possibility of "intentional killing" (Caplan & Arp 2014)

Which do you think is the proper moral principle to apply in this case? What course of action does it recommend, and why? Defend your answer Working as a nurse, I find myself caught between these two different opinions and I am going to state why. Our mission as healthcare workers is to promote wellbeing and optimize health. However, seeing someone suffering from pain from a terminal disease like cancer on a daily basis makes me lean towards the fact that we as nurses and doctors must respect a person's wishes and autonomy. If a patient decides to make himself or herself DNR (do not resuscitate) this must be respected. It is morally wrong to see a person suffering and do nothing about it, but as nurses or doctors we also don't have the right to end someone's life. Every case is different, sometimes the person itself makes the decision while alive, or through a DNR document or living will. In certain cases, family has to make the decision for them? I don't think this make the family killers if they decide to end the suffering of a loved one that is going through a lot and has no quality of life. Reference: Caplan, A. L., & Arp, R. (2014). Contemporary debates in bioethics. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell

Discussion form

Compare the moral principles to which Lachs and Lee appeal. Are they the same principles or are they different, and what consequences does this fact have for the issue of physician-assisted suicide? Which do you think is the proper moral principle to apply in this case? What course of action does it recommend, and why? Defend your answer.

6 ) Reply to this John Lach applies the principle of utility in looking at suicide and physician assisted suicide. He believes that end of suffering and the relief of death is the greater good for the person. The suicide is justified because the suffering person is finally at ease. This is utilitarian view that says that the end justifies the means.

Patrick Lee on the other hand applies the principle of human dignity and opposes the utilitarian view. He believes that at its core, human life is sacred and ought to be persevered at all costs, even if to end their pain and suffering. This is a deontological view in that the end should never justify the means.

I agree with Lach's utilitarian approach in this manner. While I personally do not support assisted suicide as I see value in suffering as an essential aspect of my human existence and meaning, I am able to sympathize and understand a person's desires to end his existence. I support a person's option to choose death for himself and their right to define their own meaning of value and dignity in life, rather than a view being forced on by society. While my previous point may seem to be contradictory in light of our discussion on morality (as morality is essentially defined by society), I do feel as though we have a right to define ourselves. We ought to have the right to make our own decisions regarding life or death as long as it does not involve harming others.