Scribd
Upload
14 views2 pages

BIOETHICS

Uploaded by

Anna Ibales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views2 pages

BIOETHICS

Uploaded by

Anna Ibales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

NAME: IBALES, ANNA MAE A.

GRADE&SECTION: 2nd Year NU-304 SUBJECT: BIOETHICS

ANSWERS:
1. The case describes active voluntary euthanasia, where the youngest brother took direct
action (using a pistol) to end the suffering of his brother, who had repeatedly asked for
death.
If I were the sibling, I would not have done the same, as using violence adds trauma and
harm. Instead, I would prefer a more compassionate and painless method if euthanasia
were ethically and legally permitted, to honor my loved one’s wishes with dignity.

2. From a utilitarian perspective, the act could be justified as minimizing suffering by ending the
physicist's pain, aiming for the greatest happiness (or least suffering) for the individual.

However, from a deontological standpoint, the act would be unethical, as it violates the
moral duty to preserve life, regardless of the consequences.

My evaluation leans towards deontology, as the means (violent death) contradict the
inherent value of life and non-violence.

3. This case describes physician-assisted suicide, where Dr. Kevorkian provided the means
(suicide machine), but Janet Adkins performed the final act by pressing the button
herself.

Mrs. Adkins' decision was influenced by the fear of losing autonomy and mental capacity
due to Alzheimer's. She sought a painless, dignified death before her condition worsened.

If I had the same disease, I might not make the same decision, as I value life regardless of
its challenges. I would prefer to explore care options that could preserve quality of life,
rather than hastening death.

4. Euthanasia is referred to as "death without suffering" because its primary aim is to end a
person's life in a way that minimizes or eliminates physical and emotional pain. The goal
is to provide a compassionate and painless death for individuals facing terminal or
debilitating conditions, thereby avoiding prolonged suffering.

5. Self-administered euthanasia occurs when an individual directly takes action to end


their own life, such as by ingesting a lethal dose of medication.

Other-administered euthanasia involves another person, typically a physician or


caregiver, performing the action to end the individual's life, such as through
administering a lethal injection or setting up a suicide machine.

In self-administered euthanasia, the individual is in control of the final act, while in other-
administered euthanasia, someone else carries out the action.

6. Impact of Modern Science and Technology on Dying: Advances in science and


technology have complicated the problem of dying by extending life through medical
interventions and life support systems. While these technologies can prolong life, they
also raise ethical concerns about the quality of life, the right to die, and the decision-
making process for end-of-life care.
7. Planning Death vs. Planning Birth: Unlike planning birth or conception, which is
typically a matter of choice and preparation, planning one's own death is often fraught
with ethical, legal, and emotional complexities. While some may desire to control their
end-of-life decisions, societal, legal, and ethical barriers often limit how and when this
can be achieved.

8. Right to End Life Amid Suffering: The question of whether one should be allowed to
end their life when suffering becomes overwhelming is deeply debated. Advocates for
euthanasia argue that individuals should have the autonomy to end their suffering, while
opponents emphasize the sanctity of life and the potential for recovery or improvement,
even in dire circumstances.

9. Moral Evaluation of Euthanasia:

Utilitarian Perspective: Euthanasia could be justified as it seeks to reduce overall


suffering and maximize well-being by allowing individuals to avoid prolonged pain.

Deontological Perspective: Euthanasia may be considered unethical as it involves


actively ending a life, which may violate the moral duty to preserve life and respect
inherent human dignity.

Virtue Ethics: This perspective would consider the compassion and intentions behind
euthanasia, focusing on the character and motivations of those involved, assessing
whether their actions align with virtues like mercy and respect for autonomy.

The ethical acceptability of euthanasia varies depending on the values and principles
prioritized by different ethical theories.

You might also like