Exam (elaborations)
PLS3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE
GUIDELINE) Semester 1 2025 - DUE 29 April
2025 Course
Theoretical and Applied Ethics (PLS3701)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
An Introduction to Ethics
PLS3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE GUIDELINE) Semester 1 2025 (872216) -
DUE 29 April 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
Biomedical Ethics Is euthanasia, in the form of physician-assisted dying,
ethically distinct from withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and allowing a
patient to die? Critically engage with this question by analysing key ethical
principles, such as autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Develop a
well-reasoned argument, drawing on philosophical perspectives and relevant
case studies. Business Ethics Examine the relationship between stakeholder
interests and ethical considerations in a business environment. Is it possible
to fully balance the competing interests of various stakeholders while
maintaining ethical integrity? Construct a critical argument, engaging with
relevant ethical theories and real-world business dilemmas. Environmental
Ethics Social ecology and bioregionalism offer competing frameworks for
understanding environmental ethics through the lenses of domination and
alienation. Critically evaluate these two perspectives, engaging with the
theories of Murray Bookchin and Donald Alexander. In your discussion,
consider the philosophical foundations of each approach and their
implications for environmental activism and policy.
Biomedical Ethics: Euthanasia vs. Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment
Introduction: The question of whether euthanasia, specifically physician-assisted dying, is
ethically distinct from withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is a profound moral dilemma in
medical ethics. The distinction between active and passive forms of euthanasia and their ethical
justification touches on key ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, and non-
maleficence. This critical analysis will explore these principles and weigh the ethical
implications of both actions.
1. Key Ethical Principles:
, Autonomy: Autonomy refers to an individual’s right to make decisions about their own
life, including the right to refuse treatment or, in some cases, to request assisted dying.
Proponents of physician-assisted dying argue that individuals should have the right to
choose a peaceful and dignified death, especially when suffering from a terminal illness.
Autonomy is at the core of many ethical discussions about euthanasia, as it emphasizes
respect for the individual’s ability to make decisions about their own body and life.
Beneficence: Beneficence refers to the ethical principle of doing good or acting in the
best interest of the patient. In the case of euthanasia, proponents argue that helping a
person end their suffering through physician-assisted dying is a form of beneficence,
particularly in cases of terminal illness or unbearable pain. Similarly, withdrawing life-
sustaining treatment may also be seen as a form of beneficence, as it can relieve a patient
from prolonged suffering and an unworthy quality of life.
Non-maleficence: Non-maleficence emphasizes the importance of "do no harm." Critics
of euthanasia argue that actively ending a life, even with the consent of the patient,
constitutes harm and violates this principle. However, others argue that withholding or
withdrawing treatment that may prolong suffering and a low quality of life could be seen
as non-maleficent, as it allows the patient to die naturally, sparing them further pain.
2. Euthanasia vs. Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment:
Euthanasia (Physician-Assisted Dying): Euthanasia is often characterized as an active
intervention where a physician takes deliberate action to cause a patient’s death, often by
administering a lethal dose of medication. Proponents argue that physician-assisted dying
respects autonomy and provides a merciful release from intolerable suffering. The key
ethical issue here is whether it is justifiable to intentionally cause death to relieve
suffering, especially when there is a voluntary request from the patient.
Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment: Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is
considered a passive action where medical treatment (such as mechanical ventilation,
feeding tubes, or dialysis) is removed, and the patient is allowed to die naturally,
typically from the underlying condition. This is often viewed as ethically distinct because
it involves letting nature take its course rather than actively ending a life. However,
critics argue that withdrawing life support can also result in suffering and that, in some
cases, the patient may die slowly and painfully.
3. Ethical Distinction:
While both euthanasia and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment may lead to the death of a
patient, the key ethical difference lies in the intent and action:
Euthanasia involves actively ending life to relieve suffering, which can be seen as an
intentional act of killing.
Withdrawing treatment may be seen as allowing death to occur naturally, with the
intent to relieve suffering by removing invasive interventions rather than causing death
directly.
, Ethically, the distinction hinges on whether the act is viewed as killing (euthanasia) or as letting
die (withdrawing treatment). The intent behind euthanasia is to end suffering by directly causing
death, while the intent behind withdrawing treatment is to stop artificially prolonging life when
recovery is impossible, allowing the body to die in a natural way.
4. Philosophical Perspectives and Case Studies:
Deontological Ethics: From a deontological perspective, euthanasia may be morally
problematic because it involves actively ending a life, which violates the intrinsic moral
duty to respect life. However, withdrawing life support may be ethically permissible, as it
respects the natural course of life and death.
Utilitarianism: A utilitarian perspective would focus on the consequences of the actions.
If euthanasia results in the greatest amount of happiness or relief from suffering for the
patient, it may be justified. Similarly, withdrawing life-sustaining treatment may also be
justified if it reduces prolonged suffering and respects the patient's wishes.
Case Study: In the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who assisted in over 130 deaths,
euthanasia was presented as a choice for patients in extreme suffering. The ethical debate
surrounding Kevorkian’s actions was largely based on whether he was respecting the
autonomy of patients or committing murder. In contrast, cases where life-sustaining
treatment is withdrawn (such as in the case of Terri Schiavo) often involve legal and
ethical challenges surrounding patient autonomy, family decisions, and the definition of
a "quality of life."
Conclusion:
Euthanasia and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment present distinct ethical challenges,
particularly when viewed through the lens of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence.
While euthanasia is seen as an active intervention, withdrawing life support is a passive decision
that may be considered more ethically justifiable in some cases. The ethical distinction between
these two practices ultimately depends on the intent and action involved in each case. The moral
acceptability of either action should consider the patient’s wishes, the quality of life, and the
potential for suffering, drawing on both philosophical principles and real-world case studies to
guide ethical decision-making.
Business Ethics: Stakeholder Interests and Ethical Considerations in Business
Introduction: Business ethics involves making decisions that align with moral principles while
also considering the interests of various stakeholders involved in a business. These stakeholders
may include employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers, and the community. The
challenge lies in balancing the competing interests of these groups while maintaining ethical
integrity in business operations. This essay critically examines whether it is possible to fully
PLS3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE
GUIDELINE) Semester 1 2025 - DUE 29 April
2025 Course
Theoretical and Applied Ethics (PLS3701)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
An Introduction to Ethics
PLS3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE GUIDELINE) Semester 1 2025 (872216) -
DUE 29 April 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
Biomedical Ethics Is euthanasia, in the form of physician-assisted dying,
ethically distinct from withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and allowing a
patient to die? Critically engage with this question by analysing key ethical
principles, such as autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Develop a
well-reasoned argument, drawing on philosophical perspectives and relevant
case studies. Business Ethics Examine the relationship between stakeholder
interests and ethical considerations in a business environment. Is it possible
to fully balance the competing interests of various stakeholders while
maintaining ethical integrity? Construct a critical argument, engaging with
relevant ethical theories and real-world business dilemmas. Environmental
Ethics Social ecology and bioregionalism offer competing frameworks for
understanding environmental ethics through the lenses of domination and
alienation. Critically evaluate these two perspectives, engaging with the
theories of Murray Bookchin and Donald Alexander. In your discussion,
consider the philosophical foundations of each approach and their
implications for environmental activism and policy.
Biomedical Ethics: Euthanasia vs. Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment
Introduction: The question of whether euthanasia, specifically physician-assisted dying, is
ethically distinct from withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is a profound moral dilemma in
medical ethics. The distinction between active and passive forms of euthanasia and their ethical
justification touches on key ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, and non-
maleficence. This critical analysis will explore these principles and weigh the ethical
implications of both actions.
1. Key Ethical Principles:
, Autonomy: Autonomy refers to an individual’s right to make decisions about their own
life, including the right to refuse treatment or, in some cases, to request assisted dying.
Proponents of physician-assisted dying argue that individuals should have the right to
choose a peaceful and dignified death, especially when suffering from a terminal illness.
Autonomy is at the core of many ethical discussions about euthanasia, as it emphasizes
respect for the individual’s ability to make decisions about their own body and life.
Beneficence: Beneficence refers to the ethical principle of doing good or acting in the
best interest of the patient. In the case of euthanasia, proponents argue that helping a
person end their suffering through physician-assisted dying is a form of beneficence,
particularly in cases of terminal illness or unbearable pain. Similarly, withdrawing life-
sustaining treatment may also be seen as a form of beneficence, as it can relieve a patient
from prolonged suffering and an unworthy quality of life.
Non-maleficence: Non-maleficence emphasizes the importance of "do no harm." Critics
of euthanasia argue that actively ending a life, even with the consent of the patient,
constitutes harm and violates this principle. However, others argue that withholding or
withdrawing treatment that may prolong suffering and a low quality of life could be seen
as non-maleficent, as it allows the patient to die naturally, sparing them further pain.
2. Euthanasia vs. Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment:
Euthanasia (Physician-Assisted Dying): Euthanasia is often characterized as an active
intervention where a physician takes deliberate action to cause a patient’s death, often by
administering a lethal dose of medication. Proponents argue that physician-assisted dying
respects autonomy and provides a merciful release from intolerable suffering. The key
ethical issue here is whether it is justifiable to intentionally cause death to relieve
suffering, especially when there is a voluntary request from the patient.
Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment: Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is
considered a passive action where medical treatment (such as mechanical ventilation,
feeding tubes, or dialysis) is removed, and the patient is allowed to die naturally,
typically from the underlying condition. This is often viewed as ethically distinct because
it involves letting nature take its course rather than actively ending a life. However,
critics argue that withdrawing life support can also result in suffering and that, in some
cases, the patient may die slowly and painfully.
3. Ethical Distinction:
While both euthanasia and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment may lead to the death of a
patient, the key ethical difference lies in the intent and action:
Euthanasia involves actively ending life to relieve suffering, which can be seen as an
intentional act of killing.
Withdrawing treatment may be seen as allowing death to occur naturally, with the
intent to relieve suffering by removing invasive interventions rather than causing death
directly.
, Ethically, the distinction hinges on whether the act is viewed as killing (euthanasia) or as letting
die (withdrawing treatment). The intent behind euthanasia is to end suffering by directly causing
death, while the intent behind withdrawing treatment is to stop artificially prolonging life when
recovery is impossible, allowing the body to die in a natural way.
4. Philosophical Perspectives and Case Studies:
Deontological Ethics: From a deontological perspective, euthanasia may be morally
problematic because it involves actively ending a life, which violates the intrinsic moral
duty to respect life. However, withdrawing life support may be ethically permissible, as it
respects the natural course of life and death.
Utilitarianism: A utilitarian perspective would focus on the consequences of the actions.
If euthanasia results in the greatest amount of happiness or relief from suffering for the
patient, it may be justified. Similarly, withdrawing life-sustaining treatment may also be
justified if it reduces prolonged suffering and respects the patient's wishes.
Case Study: In the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who assisted in over 130 deaths,
euthanasia was presented as a choice for patients in extreme suffering. The ethical debate
surrounding Kevorkian’s actions was largely based on whether he was respecting the
autonomy of patients or committing murder. In contrast, cases where life-sustaining
treatment is withdrawn (such as in the case of Terri Schiavo) often involve legal and
ethical challenges surrounding patient autonomy, family decisions, and the definition of
a "quality of life."
Conclusion:
Euthanasia and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment present distinct ethical challenges,
particularly when viewed through the lens of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence.
While euthanasia is seen as an active intervention, withdrawing life support is a passive decision
that may be considered more ethically justifiable in some cases. The ethical distinction between
these two practices ultimately depends on the intent and action involved in each case. The moral
acceptability of either action should consider the patient’s wishes, the quality of life, and the
potential for suffering, drawing on both philosophical principles and real-world case studies to
guide ethical decision-making.
Business Ethics: Stakeholder Interests and Ethical Considerations in Business
Introduction: Business ethics involves making decisions that align with moral principles while
also considering the interests of various stakeholders involved in a business. These stakeholders
may include employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers, and the community. The
challenge lies in balancing the competing interests of these groups while maintaining ethical
integrity in business operations. This essay critically examines whether it is possible to fully
