could you write an response essay of roughly 250-500 words after reading the article I attached , by explain and write as much as details do you have , but please DO NOT copy , paste , or piligrasim ..
Read “the philosopher’s brief” on page 661 of the Bioethics text. What is the central argument and how is the claim made? Do you agree or disagree and why or why not? Use specific examples, textual support, and solid argumentation in your response essay of roughly 250-500 words.
after you finish the response please answer these questions by small essay , please write your opinion without copy or paste or piligrasim
Q1:
What is Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act? Give at least one common defense of it and one common objection to it.
Q2:
What is Judith Jarvis Thompson’s main claim in her “defense of abortion” (cont. issues in bioethics, page 353) and why is it a good or bad argument? Give specific arguments, textual support, and examples in support of your position.
Expert Solution Preview
Response Essay:
In the article “The Philosopher’s Brief” on page 661 of the Bioethics text, the central argument revolves around the concept of autonomy and its relation to the right to die. The claim made is that individuals should have the legal right to make decisions about their own lives, including the choice of assisted suicide, without interference from the state. The argument emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the need for compassionate end-of-life care.
I agree with the central argument presented in “The Philosopher’s Brief.” The claim is effectively made by providing logical reasoning, legal precedent, and emotional appeals. The authors argue that autonomy is a fundamental principle in our society, and restricting the right to die violates this principle. They also point out that the state should not impose its moral judgments on individuals who are suffering and wish to end their lives.
Support for this argument can be seen in the case of Brittany Maynard, a terminally ill patient who moved to Oregon in order to access the Death with Dignity Act. By having the option to end her life peacefully, she was able to maintain control over her own circumstances and avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. This case highlights the importance of allowing individuals to make choices about their own lives, especially in situations where they are facing inevitable and unbearable suffering.
However, opponents may argue that the legalization of assisted suicide could lead to potential abuses and the devaluing of human life. They may claim that allowing physicians to assist in ending a patient’s life goes against the principles of medicine and the Hippocratic Oath. Critics may also express concerns about the slippery slope of determining who qualifies for assisted suicide and the potential for coercion.
While these objections raise valid points, safeguards can be put in place to address these concerns. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, for example, requires the patient’s decision to be voluntary and well-informed, with the consultation of multiple physicians. These measures help ensure that the decision to pursue assisted suicide is made autonomously and without undue influence.
In conclusion, “The Philosopher’s Brief” presents a compelling argument for the right to die as an exercise of personal autonomy. It emphasizes the importance of compassion and individual choice in end-of-life decisions. While objections exist, proper regulations and safeguards can be implemented to address these concerns. The central argument promotes respect for individual autonomy and the principle that individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, especially in situations of significant suffering and impending death.
Q1: Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill residents of Oregon to obtain prescription medications to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner. It is a law that grants individuals autonomy in making end-of-life decisions. A common defense of this act is that it upholds the principle of personal autonomy, allowing individuals to exercise control over their own lives, even in the face of terminal illness. It provides a compassionate option for those facing unbearable suffering and offers some control over their destiny.
A common objection to the Death with Dignity Act is the concern that it opens the door to potential abuses. Opponents argue that the act devalues human life and challenges the ethical foundation of medicine. They fear that vulnerable populations, such as the elderly or disabled, may be coerced into choosing assisted suicide against their true wishes. Additionally, opponents argue that physicians should prioritize alleviating suffering rather than assisting in ending a patient’s life.
Q2: In her “Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson argues that even if we grant that a fetus has a right to life, it does not automatically follow that abortion is morally impermissible. Thompson’s main claim is that the right to life does not entail the right to use another person’s body without their consent. She supports this claim by introducing the famous violinist analogy, where she imagines waking up to find oneself attached to a famous violinist through medical tubes. She argues that although the violinist’s life has value, one’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes the violinist’s right to use one’s body.
Thompson’s argument is strong because it forces individuals to consider the rights and autonomy of pregnant women. By using analogies and thought experiments, she challenges traditional assumptions and highlights the complexities of the abortion debate. Her argument refutes the notion that the fetus’s right to life automatically outweighs a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. By emphasizing bodily autonomy, Thompson sheds light on the ethical dilemmas surrounding unwanted pregnancies and raises questions about the moral obligations of women in such situations.
