Moral and ethical debates attempted to resolves controversial issues but never seem to end with everyone agreeing. Often these ethical and moral debates are complex and involve opinions persuaded by religion or customs and have legal implications to consider. Physician assisted death is one of these very complex and controversial issues that all people will never agree on. Many questions arise in the debate of physician assisted death such as patients’ rights, physicians controlling the right if someone lives or dies, a patience’s mental state, a family member’s rights, religious beliefs of the parties involved and the law. Philosophers attempt to explain the different theories that people will use to argue their belief systems in terms of logic and reasoning. For example, some people may take the position of a deontologist who would argue that it is our moral duty to support and sustain life therefore assisted suicide should not be allowed. Unfortunately, this very emotional thought provoking debate is not a “black and white issue,” as most ethical arguments are not. In the situation of physician assisted death I disagree with the deontologist point of view that it is immoral for a physician to assist a patient in suicide. I believe as some relativist due, that as long as the patient is fully capable of making this decision and the patient is in a constant state of agony, then the patient has the right to make the choice to live or die. A relativist believes that morals are only relative to that particular society and if physician assisted death was considered moral in that group then it would be considered a moral act. Neither theory is without flaws as some deontologist even share my point of view and some relativist can be very extreme in what they feel is relative to being morally right or wrong. The bottom line is that people will probably never completely agree on this subject.
Ethical Perspective on