PLS3701
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO. 872216
DUE DATE: 29 APRIL 2025
,ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO. 872216
PLS3701 Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date:
Theoretical and Applied Ethics
TOPIC 1
Is Physician-Assisted Dying Ethically Distinct from Withdrawing Life-Sustaining
Treatment?
Introduction
Modern medical technologies have significantly increased the capacity to prolong
human life. While these advancements offer hope and extended care, they also bring
ethical complexities—especially concerning end-of-life decisions. Among the most
debated issues are physician-assisted dying (PAD) and the withdrawal of life-sustaining
treatment. Although these practices differ in process, the ethical distinction between
them is not always clear-cut. This essay argues that, from the standpoint of ethical
principles such as respect for autonomy, relief of suffering (beneficence), and the duty
to do no harm (non-maleficence), PAD and the withdrawal of life support are not
fundamentally different. Drawing on philosophical perspectives—such as James
Rachels’ argument on the moral equivalence of killing and letting die—and real-world
examples like the Oregon Death with Dignity Act and the case of Terri Schiavo, the
discussion will reveal that the ethical separation often made between these two
practices does not withstand critical ethical analysis.
, Definitions and Conceptual Clarifications
Physician-assisted dying (PAD) involves a physician providing a competent, terminally
ill patient with the means to end their own life, typically through a prescription for a lethal
dose of medication (Quill, 1991). By contrast, withdrawing life-sustaining treatment
refers to the cessation of medical interventions, such as mechanical ventilation or
artificial nutrition and hydration, that are keeping a patient alive (Beauchamp &
Childress, 2019). While PAD entails an active measure to cause death, withdrawing
treatment allows death to occur from the underlying illness. Critics often argue that this
difference in action constitutes an ethical distinction. However, defenders of PAD argue
that both practices aim to respect patient autonomy and relieve suffering, challenging
the notion that they are ethically distinct.
Ethical Principles at Stake
Autonomy
Autonomy, the right of individuals to make informed decisions about their own lives and
bodies, is a foundational principle in biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Both PAD and withdrawing treatment fundamentally serve to uphold patient autonomy.
In PAD, the patient consciously chooses to end their life to escape unbearable suffering.
Similarly, withdrawing treatment reflects the patient’s decision to refuse medical
interventions they perceive as burdensome or futile.
Respect for autonomy implies that the patient's choice must be honored, provided they
are competent and fully informed. Denying PAD while permitting withdrawal of treatment
seems inconsistent if the ethical basis is the respect for the patient's autonomous
decision. If we accept that a competent patient has the right to refuse treatment and
thus hasten death, consistency demands accepting their choice to seek PAD under
similar conditions.
Beneficence
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO. 872216
DUE DATE: 29 APRIL 2025
,ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO. 872216
PLS3701 Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date:
Theoretical and Applied Ethics
TOPIC 1
Is Physician-Assisted Dying Ethically Distinct from Withdrawing Life-Sustaining
Treatment?
Introduction
Modern medical technologies have significantly increased the capacity to prolong
human life. While these advancements offer hope and extended care, they also bring
ethical complexities—especially concerning end-of-life decisions. Among the most
debated issues are physician-assisted dying (PAD) and the withdrawal of life-sustaining
treatment. Although these practices differ in process, the ethical distinction between
them is not always clear-cut. This essay argues that, from the standpoint of ethical
principles such as respect for autonomy, relief of suffering (beneficence), and the duty
to do no harm (non-maleficence), PAD and the withdrawal of life support are not
fundamentally different. Drawing on philosophical perspectives—such as James
Rachels’ argument on the moral equivalence of killing and letting die—and real-world
examples like the Oregon Death with Dignity Act and the case of Terri Schiavo, the
discussion will reveal that the ethical separation often made between these two
practices does not withstand critical ethical analysis.
, Definitions and Conceptual Clarifications
Physician-assisted dying (PAD) involves a physician providing a competent, terminally
ill patient with the means to end their own life, typically through a prescription for a lethal
dose of medication (Quill, 1991). By contrast, withdrawing life-sustaining treatment
refers to the cessation of medical interventions, such as mechanical ventilation or
artificial nutrition and hydration, that are keeping a patient alive (Beauchamp &
Childress, 2019). While PAD entails an active measure to cause death, withdrawing
treatment allows death to occur from the underlying illness. Critics often argue that this
difference in action constitutes an ethical distinction. However, defenders of PAD argue
that both practices aim to respect patient autonomy and relieve suffering, challenging
the notion that they are ethically distinct.
Ethical Principles at Stake
Autonomy
Autonomy, the right of individuals to make informed decisions about their own lives and
bodies, is a foundational principle in biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Both PAD and withdrawing treatment fundamentally serve to uphold patient autonomy.
In PAD, the patient consciously chooses to end their life to escape unbearable suffering.
Similarly, withdrawing treatment reflects the patient’s decision to refuse medical
interventions they perceive as burdensome or futile.
Respect for autonomy implies that the patient's choice must be honored, provided they
are competent and fully informed. Denying PAD while permitting withdrawal of treatment
seems inconsistent if the ethical basis is the respect for the patient's autonomous
decision. If we accept that a competent patient has the right to refuse treatment and
thus hasten death, consistency demands accepting their choice to seek PAD under
similar conditions.
Beneficence
