Question Details

[solution] » In my first two papers I wrote about Physician Assisted Suicide

Brief item decscription

Step-by-step solution file

Item details:

In my first two papers I wrote about Physician Assisted Suicide

In my first two papers I wrote about Physician Assisted Suicide and Utilitarism.  I now need to correlate both papers into one.  But I have to add new things to it.  I will need a thesis sentence to correspond all the material that I will write about.  Attached you will find the first two papers that I wrote and attached to this are the instructions for the final paper.  I could use all the help I can get for this.  Any suggestions and a thesis would be greatly appreciated.  Here are the instructions: 

Ashford 6: - Week 5 - Final Paper

Final Paper

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper, and re-read them often during and after the writing process to make sure that you are fulfilling all of the instructions. Please also utilize the assignment guidance and the outlined model provided.

In the Week One Assignment, you formulated a concrete ethical question, took a position on that topic, and identified a reason supporting and a reason opposing that position. In the Week Three Assignment, you discussed either deontological or utilitarian theory, applied that theory to the question, and raised a relevant objection.

By engaging with the course material, you now have had a chance to refine your thinking and broaden your understanding of the problem by approaching it from the perspective of multiple ethical theories.

In this paper, you will demonstrate what you have learned by writing an essay in which you

  • Present a revised formulation of the ethical question and introduction to the topic.
  • Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest.
  • Raise an objection, and be able to respond to it.

Write an essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines:

  • IntroductionYour first paragraph should begin with the topic question, suitably revised. It should be focused, concrete, and on a relevant moral problem. You should then introduce the topic in the way described by the Week One instructions, but reflecting the developed understanding and information you have gained about the topic and any necessary refinement of the scope.
    Follow this with a thesis statement that states your position, and a brief description of the primary reason(s) supporting your position. (See the handout onthesis statementsprovided). Finally, provide a brief preview of the overall aim and procedure of your paper.
  • Explanation and Demonstration of Moral ReasoningThis section of the Final Paper will explain and demonstrate what you believe to be the best way of reasoning about the question you have chosen, and showing how that reasoning supports the position you have taken on the question. You might explain the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that you find persuasive, and show how they support concrete judgments.
    In the course of doing so, you must make reference to at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course (such as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based), and utilize at least one resource off the provided list for each of the two approaches. One of these theories may be the theory you discussed in your Week Three Assignment, but your discussion here should be more refined.
    For example, you might find the reasoning associated with Aristotelian virtue ethics to be the most compelling, and reference Aristotle in the process of showing how that reasoning supports a certain conclusion. In the course of this, you could contrast that with a utilitarian approach, referencing Mill for instance.
  • Objection and ResponseAfter explaining the ethical reasoning that supports your position, you should raise an objection and respond to it. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. You should explain how it brings out this weakness, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. Then, provide the best response you can to the objection, showing how it does not undermine your position. Your response should not simply restate your original position or argument, but should say something new in support of it.
  • ConclusionProvide a conclusion that sums up what you presented in the paper and offers some final reflections.

Resource Requirement
You must use at least four scholarly resources. Two of the resources must be drawn from the list of acceptable primary resources on each of the two theories you discuss. For example, if you discuss deontology and virtue ethics, you would need at least one resource under the ?Deontology? list and at least one resource under the ?Virtue Ethics? list. The other two may be from either the Required or Recommended Resources, or scholarly resources found in the Ashford University Library.

  • The textbook may be cited, but it does not count toward the resource requirement. If you cite the textbook, you will still need to cite at least four more sources that fulfill the requirements stated above.
  • If you need help with finding additional resources, or are unsure about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement, please contact your instructor.
  • For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page, but not cited within the paper, do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.
  • For information regarding APA, including samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center.

Running head: RIGHT TO DIE






The Right To Die


Teresa Gann


PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning


Professor Daniel T. O?Reilly


August 15, 2016









The right to die


Does a terminally ill person, who knows their last days will be in horrible pain, have the right to


request a doctor assist them in suicide?




Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is ?a physician intentionally helping a person to terminate his or


her life by providing drugs for self-administration, at that person?s voluntary and competent


request? (Radbruch, Leget, Bahr, Muller-Busch, Ellershaw, DeConno, & Vanden, 2016, p. 2).


There are five states currently in which Physician aid-in dying (PAD) is legal (White, 2015, p.


597). Oregon, Vermont, Washington and California have an option given to individuals by state


law. Montana has an option given by a court decision. If an individual has been given the news


that they have a terminal illness that gives them six months or less to live and live in one of these


five states it is legal for them to have a physician assist them in suicide. Of course, they must be


mentally competent to make this decision.


Position Statement:


The choice to take one?s life should be up to the person having to deal with the pain and misery


that they endure on a daily basis. A person has the option to visit a doctor if they become sick,


they have an option to receive medical help to stop or slow down a disease that may or may not


kill them. A person should then have the right to have a physician assist them in their death. It


should not be left up to a law that was made by a complete stranger, who has never been in this









situation. Just having the means to make a choice relieves anxiety and gives the person a chance


at a peaceful end of life. Legalizing PAS makes ending one?s life due to illness not only easier


but more socially acceptable, since many people feared a bad death that might involve


dependence on machines (Harvey, 2016, para. 6). This gives that person peace of mind and


gives their dignity back to them.


Supporting Reason:


If a person?s body has taken all it can take and they are tired of living in pain then they should be


given the right to end their life in a manner in which they see fit. This should be a law that is


legal in every state and not just five. It gives the terminally ill patient the peace to know that


they will not become a burden on their families, or leave their families with outrageous bills for


them to pay. The terminally ill patient should have a document such as a living will, to state that


if the time arises and a horrendous death is imminent then physician assisted suicide should be a


choice in which they can make.


Opposing Reason:


There is no accountability as to how or who administers the drug. A person who stands to


benefit from the patient?s death could administer the drug to the patient without the patients


consent, even if the patient decided to change their mind. The laws only consent to the lethal


prescription, not consent at the time of death (White, 2015, p. 596). PAS affects the loved ones


that are left behind, it deprives the family and friends of the life they shared with the terminally


ill patient (Harvey, 2016, para. 7). In times of such a decision, the terminally ill patient has to


make the decision, it is not left up to the loved ones. Physician assisted suicide could threaten the


relationship with the physician. The physician may not believe in PAD and therefore will not









prescribe the medicine in which the terminally ill patient needs to perform their own death. This


can discourage the patient and make them seek help from another physician, even though the


physician they have now has been their physician for many years.











Harvey, K. E. (2016) Mercy and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Ethics & Medics, 41 (6), 1-2


Radbruch, L., Leget, C., Bahr, P., Muller-Busch, C., Ellershaw, J., De Conno, F., & Vanden


Berghe, P. (2016). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A white paper from the


European Association for Palliative Care. Palliative Medicine, 30 (2), 104-116.




White, C. (2015) Physician Aid-in Dying. Houston Law Review, 53 (2), 595-629.




About this question:

This question was answered on: Feb 21, 2020

PRICE: $24 (18.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $24

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card. All your purchases are securely protected by PayPal.

Need a similar solution fast, written anew from scratch? Place your own custom order

We have top-notch tutors who can help you with your essay at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments. This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student. New solution orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

Order Now