However, according to Rachel, he says that “we ought to enforce a rigorous rule against it.” (Luper and Brown, p. 358). He gives two different forms: logical and psychology version of the slippery slope argument. Logical interpretation: in Bishop Sullivan view of euthanasia, he is saying that if we accept to allow euthanasia on a person that is suffering, we might kill others for no reason. However, Rachel objects to this argument proving that rational grounds do not prove that active euthanasia is legally prohibited in every case (Luper and Brown, p. 359). For instance, an ill person and a man with a disease, the first case; the person does not want to die, whereas, the second case the diseased patient wants to end his life using euthanasia which is acceptable to end the agony.
The slippery slope argument claims that if an action, such as euthanasia, were to be permitted, then society will be led down the slippery slope, or be permitting other actions that are morally wrong, “in general form, it means that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted” (“Anti-euthanasia”). The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics concluded it is virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia are truly voluntary. The idea that patients should have the right to decide when to end their life would impose on the doctors a duty to kill, thus... ... middle of paper ... ...not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends. It affirms life and regards death as a normal process, neither hastening nor postponing death, but providing relief from suffering” (“Anti-euthanasia”).
Many see euthanasia as inhumane and religiously erroneous, but we must view this decision from the eyes of the suffering patient. The rights we are given and promised should include the right to death, in the event that it will do more good than harm to the individual. Due to such reasons, euthanasia should be legalized and deemed one of the matters that the government does not have a hand in.
And who has the right to deny a person a peaceful ending to their life and stop the suffering permanently? Euthanasia is a very controversial topic and those in favour argue that it’s the patients choice what they do with their life in cases of terminal illnesses the death is inevitable so what is the point in prolonging the process? Others argue that Voluntary euthanasia will eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia and the termination of people deemed as undesirable. A strong ethical argument against the use of euthanasia is that, Lord Walton, chairman of a House of Lords committee looking into euthanasia says: “We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.” Since involuntary euthanasia is indistinguishable from murder it will be hard to identify and regulate murder cases as they can be passed off as involuntary euthanasia leading to the severity of murder as a crime being mediocre since people can escape the consequence using euthanasia. There is also concern that doctors are bestowed with too much power and... ... middle of paper ... ... used in other situations other than terminal illness is old age and being able to die with dignity before they are unable to go through with simple tasks such as going toilet alone, this is usually they don’t burden their families and retain pride.
Don't Legalize Euthanasia Euthanasia, a term that can be described as "mercy killing" or the ending of a person's life because they no longer have the desire to live. Euthanasia has been a worldwide controversial debate for many years. Two types of euthanasia may be discussed, active and passive. Active described as "killing" and passive as "allowing to die." Is it the physical pain or is it depression that leads a person to desire death?
Abstract In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’ and ‘right for self-determination’ fail to justify taking one’s life. Introduction Among other moral issues, euthanasia emerged with modern medical advancement, which allows us ever more control over not only our life but also death. Euthanasia is an especially sensitive issue because it deals with the death and the killing of a person. In this paper, I argue that euthanasia is wrong by responding to the claims implied in other terms which euthanasia is expressed exchangeably and understood by and large; ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’, and ‘doctor assisted suicide’.
Sincerely this way for looking for a non suffering death is very inhumane. Euthanasia is a very non-ethical especially for the physicians who have to medicate this and watch this happen to their patients. How would you feel watching people die more and more quickly each day because of this drug? It must be heartbreaking especially if you studied to try to save people’s lives. We should try to fix a problem instead of creating new ones with euthanasia.
Murder or Mercy: The Morality of Voluntary, Active Euthanasia 1596 words without Works Cited Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of killing or allowing someone to die in order to prevent further suffering. Some view this act as granting mercy by taking away the pain and allowing a person to die, others believe that this is murder. This practice is considered illegal in forty-six states, which leaves only four states that have passed laws allowing euthanasia to occur under the right circumstances. Active euthanasia is considered a very controversial topic because terminally ill patients believe they should have the right to decide when to end their lives but ethicists and lawmakers say otherwise. In the eyes of Ethics, voluntary euthanasia is still considered murder.
My personal belief is that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are almost always immoral. I believe that a person should embrace their last breath and let it happen naturally not by their own means. If a person's medical condition altered their appearance they should not be looked down upon or stared at. They should be treated with respect and compassion like every other person. I do agree though that there are some instance in which it is appropriate for a person to be taken off of life support or have their life ended.
Euthanasia is morally incorrect; it can be compared to the murder of another human. Legalizing Euthanasia devalues human life. When someone pulls the plug on another person's life, it is equivalent to committing murder because that person is no longer living due to someone else's actions. According to Dr.Clarence H. Braddock III, a faculty member of the University of Washington's departments of medicine and medical history and ethics, "taking a life under any circumstances is immoral". Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life.