I need help on writing a 1500 to 2000 in PHI 208, essay on the question: Who gives a physician the right in Helping in suicide? In this paper, you will demonstrate what you have learned by writing an essay in which you Present a revised formulation of the ethical question and introduction to the topic. Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest. Raise an objection, and be able to respond to it. Instructions Write an essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines: Introduction Your first paragraph should begin with the topic question, suitably revised. It should be focused, concrete, and on a relevant moral problem. You should then introduce the topic in the way described by the Week One instructions, but reflecting the developed understanding and information you have gained about the topic and any necessary refinement of the scope. Follow this with a thesis statement that states your position, and a brief description of the primary reason(s) supporting your position. (See the handout on thesis statements provided). Finally, provide a brief preview of the overall aim and procedure of your paper. Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning This section of the Final Paper will explain and demonstrate what you believe to be the best way of reasoning about the question you have chosen, and showing how that reasoning supports the position you have taken on the question. You might explain the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that you find persuasive, and show how they support concrete judgments. In the course of doing so, you must make reference to at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course (such as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based), and utilize at least one resource off the provided list for each of the two approaches. One of these theories may be the theory you discussed in your Week Three Assignment, but your discussion here should be more refined. For example, you might find the reasoning associated with Aristotelian virtue ethics to be the most compelling, and reference Aristotle in the process of showing how that reasoning supports a certain conclusion. In the course of this, you could contrast that with a utilitarian approach, referencing Mill for instance. Objection and Response After explaining the ethical reasoning that supports your position, you should raise an objection and respond to it. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. You should explain how it brings out this weakness, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. Then, provide the best response you can to the objection, showing how it does not undermine your position. Your response should not simply restate your original position or argument, but should say something new in support of it. Conclusion Provide a conclusion that sums up what you presented in the paper and offers some final reflections.
—
The question of whether a physician should have the right to Help in suicide is a highly controversial and complex one. In order to approach this question, it is important to first revise the ethical question to be more specific and focused. A revised formulation of the question could be: Under what circumstances, if any, is it morally justifiable for a physician to Help a terminally ill patient in ending their own life?
In order to approach this question, I believe that a combination of both deontological and consequentialist reasoning is necessary. Deontological reasoning, as outlined by Immanuel Kant, emphasizes the importance of moral duties and rules, and the idea that some actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of their consequences. On the other hand, consequentialist reasoning, as outlined by John Stuart Mill, focuses on the outcomes or consequences of actions in determining their morality.
In the case of physician-Helped suicide, deontological reasoning may argue that it is a moral duty for a physician to preserve and prolong life, and therefore Helping in suicide would be morally wrong. However, consequentialist reasoning may argue that in certain circumstances, such as when a patient is suffering from a terminal illness with no hope of recovery and is in unbearable pain, the consequences of allowing the patient to end their own life may be more morally favorable than prolonging their suffering.
One potential objection to this argument is that physician-Helped suicide could lead to a slippery slope towards non-voluntary or coerced euthanasia. To address this objection, it is important to note that strict guidelines and regulations, such as obtaining informed consent from the patient and ensuring that the patient is capable of making their own decision, can be implemented to prevent abuse of the practice. Additionally, it is important to consider the autonomy and dignity of the patient, and the fact that prolonging their suffering against their will may be a violation of their rights.
While the question of physician-Helped suicide is a complex and controversial one, a combination of deontological and consequentialist reasoning can provide a framework for approaching the question. It is important to consider the autonomy and dignity of the patient, as well as the potential consequences of the action in determining its morality. However, strict guidelines and regulations must also be in place to prevent abuse and ensure that the patient’s rights are respected.

Published by

Dissertations

View all posts