Question

While physician-assisted suicide is a controversial moral issue in bioethics, our society generally accepts euthanizing pet animals without controversy when they become terminally ill or have to cope with continuous pain. Why do you think this difference exists given that humans are often able to clearly communicate their desire to die while our pets typically are not? Are these situations morally different?

How do you think a person’s position regarding physician-assisted suicide is influenced by his or her preferred moral theory or bioethical principle? Refer to at least two moral theories and one bioethical principle in your post.

Answer 1

The basic difference between the practices of human and veterinary medicines are profound. As highlighted, euthanizing pet animals is widely accepted however the ethics of physician-assisted suicide is highly debated. In my view, all lives should be considered more or less equal, and therefore these situations are not drastically different from each other. Most people, however, would consider human lives to be far more superior, something worth preserving at all possible costs. The difference in the perception, therefore, implies that humans are not animals and what we do to animals would be morally inappropriate if done to people.

Please post the other questions separately as we are supposed to answer just one question or four subparts of a question.