Can you give a short response for each post below (Basically saying how you feel about their post and ask a question to them)

This is the topic they responded to: Some people promote the idea that humans should have the right to die with dignity (seehttps://www.deathwithdignity.org/). Several states have legalized physician-assisted suicide (PAS). However, others may argue that forcing a doctor to prescribe a deadly prescription violates their Hippocratic Oath or claim that suicide by any means is immoral. Doing research and taking into consideration the actual laws concerning when and how a confirmed terminal patient would be able to request PAS, make an argument that it is or is not a moral action. Also see if you can find Kant's famous argument on the immorality of suicide. Does he have a point or are there just some times when the morally right thing to do is to allow a person to end his or her suffering?

Post 1:

Physician-assisted suicide is a very intriguing topic and highly debatable. Working in the medical field, this topic always reminds me of the time a hospital colleague went into cardiac arrest. Since the patient worked in the hospital, some said they had to continue administering CPR long after the patient was deceased. Some argued even though he has been brain dead for well over 20 minutes, it was our duty to continue trying to resuscitate him. With physician-assisted suicide, when does it become the point that it is better to let the patient be relieved of their burdens, compared to continuing administering medications to try to prolong their life?

In my opinion, I think physician-assisted suicide is morally right. Having seen elderly patients complain about the pain and suffering they go through daily; I believe it would be in their best interest to not have to continue with the suffering. If the patient follows the laws involved; like age 18+, able to communicate, and approve of the decision weeks apart, I believe it is a feasible decision (Sullivan, 2000).

Kant had a very opposing view on the thought of suicide. He famously stated "those who commit suicide treat themselves as little better than animals. They are, he says, 'carrion' with no 'inner worth.' (Cholbi,2015). I believe Kant is half right and wrong. In the terms of assisted suicide, I think he is wrong. I do not believe a person should be forced to suffer through their illness. In non-medical suicides, I think one can argue either way. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the suicide, it can be seen as selfish. If a person is suffering unbearable emotional/physical turmoil with no end in sight, then I believe it can be morally acceptable for them to commit suicide.

Post 2:

Good Morning Class,

This week was interesting because I got to learn a about PAS and even though it's only legal in 7 states I believe it should be legal in all 50 states with the right laws allowing it to happen. If you're terminally ill and beyond suffering the biggest argument I could provide is I don't believe a family should have to acquire an ungodly amount of debt when you want to be put out of your pain. No I also don't believe a doctor or anyone else but yourself is responsible for taking that medicine to stop your clock. It does not violate the Hippocratic Oath because doctors prescribe us all pain medicine everyday some stronger then others depending on the severity of their pain. It is the individuals responsibility to take the prescribed amount or else they're going to over dose and die more than likely. Kants famous argument is "Suicide is immoral." No justification for it. The religious side of me agrees with Kant, however sometimes the morally right thing to do isn't also the best thing to do as seen with the Utilitarianism theory. I'd like to side with the Utilitarianisms and open up PAS to all 50 states to make sure every terminally ill patient has a chance if the suffering is just too much for both them and the family that they have the opportunity to be put down.