,PLS3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 – DUE 2025 ; 100% correct solutions
and explanations.
ALL 3 ESSAYS PROVIDED
Biomedical Ethics Essay
Critically assess whether physician-assisted dying constitutes a morally distinct
category of action from the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. In your
analysis, explore how distinctions in intention, causation, and moral responsibility
are treated within normative ethical theories, such as deontology, utilitarianism, and
virtue ethics.
Introduction
The ethical debate surrounding physician-assisted dying (PAD) and the withdrawal of
life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is among the most contested in biomedical ethics. Both
practices involve decisions that lead to the death of a patient, yet the question arises: are
they morally distinct categories of action? Proponents of PAD argue for patient autonomy
and compassionate relief from suffering, while critics contend that it represents a form of
killing rather than allowing nature to take its course (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Conversely, WLST is often viewed as permissible within medical ethics and law,
particularly when continuing treatment is considered futile (Quill, 1991). This essay
critically assesses whether PAD constitutes a morally distinct category of action from
WLST by examining the distinctions in intention, causation, and moral responsibility.
The analysis draws upon three prominent normative ethical theories: deontology,
utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.
Conceptual Clarifications
1. Physician-Assisted Dying (PAD): Refers to the practice in which a physician
provides the means (such as prescribing lethal medication) for a patient to end
their own life, typically in the context of terminal illness and unbearable suffering
(Dworkin et al., 1997).
2. Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment (WLST): Involves the
discontinuation of medical interventions (such as ventilators, feeding tubes, or
, dialysis) that are necessary to keep a patient alive, allowing the underlying disease
or condition to cause death (Truog et al., 2008).
At first glance, PAD and WLST appear similar, as both result in the death of a patient.
However, their ethical evaluation requires careful attention to intention, causation, and
moral responsibility.
Intention
PAD: The physician’s intention is to enable the patient’s death, even if motivated
by compassion and respect for autonomy. The direct outcome sought is the
patient’s death.
WLST: The physician’s intention is generally not to cause death but to cease
interventions deemed futile or burdensome. The primary intention is to allow the
disease to progress without interference (Rachels, 1975).
Deontological Analysis:
From a Kantian perspective, intention is central to moral evaluation. For Kant, acts are
morally judged based on whether they respect the moral law and treat persons as ends in
themselves (Kant, 1997/1785). PAD involves the physician intending death as a means to
relieve suffering. Critics argue this violates the categorical imperative against killing.
WLST, in contrast, is often framed as ceasing futile actions rather than intending death,
which may be morally defensible. Thus, deontology tends to draw a sharper moral
distinction between PAD and WLST, privileging intention as morally decisive.
Utilitarian Analysis:
Utilitarianism evaluates actions by outcomes rather than intentions. The intention to
cause death in PAD is not morally problematic if the result maximizes overall well-
being—for example, by ending intense suffering (Singer, 2011). WLST, if it leads to less
suffering and respects patient wishes, is also justified. From this view, intention is less
critical; both PAD and WLST may be morally equivalent if their consequences are
beneficial.
Virtue Ethics Analysis:
Virtue ethics assesses intention in relation to character and moral virtue. A compassionate
physician who assists a patient in dying might be viewed as acting virtuously, embodying
compassion, courage, and honesty (Hursthouse, 1999). Similarly, withdrawing treatment
when it is no longer beneficial could also reflect virtues such as prudence and respect for
dignity. For virtue ethicists, the intention must align with moral character rather than
rigid prohibitions or utilitarian calculus.
Semester 2 2025 – DUE 2025 ; 100% correct solutions
and explanations.
ALL 3 ESSAYS PROVIDED
Biomedical Ethics Essay
Critically assess whether physician-assisted dying constitutes a morally distinct
category of action from the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. In your
analysis, explore how distinctions in intention, causation, and moral responsibility
are treated within normative ethical theories, such as deontology, utilitarianism, and
virtue ethics.
Introduction
The ethical debate surrounding physician-assisted dying (PAD) and the withdrawal of
life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is among the most contested in biomedical ethics. Both
practices involve decisions that lead to the death of a patient, yet the question arises: are
they morally distinct categories of action? Proponents of PAD argue for patient autonomy
and compassionate relief from suffering, while critics contend that it represents a form of
killing rather than allowing nature to take its course (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Conversely, WLST is often viewed as permissible within medical ethics and law,
particularly when continuing treatment is considered futile (Quill, 1991). This essay
critically assesses whether PAD constitutes a morally distinct category of action from
WLST by examining the distinctions in intention, causation, and moral responsibility.
The analysis draws upon three prominent normative ethical theories: deontology,
utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.
Conceptual Clarifications
1. Physician-Assisted Dying (PAD): Refers to the practice in which a physician
provides the means (such as prescribing lethal medication) for a patient to end
their own life, typically in the context of terminal illness and unbearable suffering
(Dworkin et al., 1997).
2. Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment (WLST): Involves the
discontinuation of medical interventions (such as ventilators, feeding tubes, or
, dialysis) that are necessary to keep a patient alive, allowing the underlying disease
or condition to cause death (Truog et al., 2008).
At first glance, PAD and WLST appear similar, as both result in the death of a patient.
However, their ethical evaluation requires careful attention to intention, causation, and
moral responsibility.
Intention
PAD: The physician’s intention is to enable the patient’s death, even if motivated
by compassion and respect for autonomy. The direct outcome sought is the
patient’s death.
WLST: The physician’s intention is generally not to cause death but to cease
interventions deemed futile or burdensome. The primary intention is to allow the
disease to progress without interference (Rachels, 1975).
Deontological Analysis:
From a Kantian perspective, intention is central to moral evaluation. For Kant, acts are
morally judged based on whether they respect the moral law and treat persons as ends in
themselves (Kant, 1997/1785). PAD involves the physician intending death as a means to
relieve suffering. Critics argue this violates the categorical imperative against killing.
WLST, in contrast, is often framed as ceasing futile actions rather than intending death,
which may be morally defensible. Thus, deontology tends to draw a sharper moral
distinction between PAD and WLST, privileging intention as morally decisive.
Utilitarian Analysis:
Utilitarianism evaluates actions by outcomes rather than intentions. The intention to
cause death in PAD is not morally problematic if the result maximizes overall well-
being—for example, by ending intense suffering (Singer, 2011). WLST, if it leads to less
suffering and respects patient wishes, is also justified. From this view, intention is less
critical; both PAD and WLST may be morally equivalent if their consequences are
beneficial.
Virtue Ethics Analysis:
Virtue ethics assesses intention in relation to character and moral virtue. A compassionate
physician who assists a patient in dying might be viewed as acting virtuously, embodying
compassion, courage, and honesty (Hursthouse, 1999). Similarly, withdrawing treatment
when it is no longer beneficial could also reflect virtues such as prudence and respect for
dignity. For virtue ethicists, the intention must align with moral character rather than
rigid prohibitions or utilitarian calculus.
