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”).
Assisted dying comes with legal, ethical, medical, moral, and religious contention. Opponents may believe in the preservation of life for as long as possible. They may believe that ending one’s life purposefully is against medical practice. They may also find the practice morally abhorrent, for personal or religious reasons. Some opponents simply cite that suicide is illegal and assisted dying is akin to suicide, and stepping too close to the edge of the law.
This point is illustrated when Haag states, “But why should we enforce the gratification of this wish on those who, for whatever reason, decide not to gratify it?” (408.1). Applied to Sidney Hook’s case the doctor was perfectly right by not helping him end his suffering. Doctors should not have to be forced to aid someone in killing themselves nor should they have to kill the person because the person wants to die. Hook should have been able to request another doctor’s assistance to carry out the task. This reading also made me think that if the doctors have the right to end patients lives would they abuse it?
You can inject the person so they can die without sorrow and pain, and take the risk of escaping the penalties. Or you can stand by the law and let him die naturally while he is pain and agony. Dr Derrick Summers believes that people should be able to leave this world without having to fight a battle that they know they are going to lose, even if it is against the law. He thinks that the person has a right to be injected if they are in a serious condition which they know that the patient is not going to make it. It isn’t just the law why people don’t inject people it is also that it is religiously wrong.
For a physician to deny the person his right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively, imposing them to live a life without what they believe is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual could be ended if the patient choose to do so. Although the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand of another person to live a life of suffering, in fact, that is immoral as it removes their right to choose. Euthanasia facilitates the choice making it the sympathetic choice and kind to that person 's
The arguments against euthanasia include the church's view on the topic of suicide. The arguments in favor of euthanasia include the patients wish to have dignity. However, regardless of the patients wishes, suicide is against the law. If a person has a living will, it would allow the doctors to lawfully end any life preserving treatment. Without a living will this cannot be done.
Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be. [Rachels, 56] My position is almost identical. I believe there are some instances in which euthanasia is immoral, but I believe it should unquestionably be legal. In the following paragraphs, I will display the position of the opposition to the legality of euthanasia as well as the position of the supporters. I shall attempt to prove that, yes, euthanasia should be legal.
However, some countries still do not accept the idea of Euthanasia. In my opinion, I strongly agree that Euthanasia should be legal because of the following reasons that will be discussed in this essay. The first main reason that people have an argument about Euthanasia is because they think that Euthanasia devalues human life. Because Euthanasia is a way to end people’s lives just by a person’s decision, they think that to kill someone without any guilt is not correct. In fact, Euthanasia does not devalue human life, but it is a choice for people who have the right to make their own decisions.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights!
Keown (2002) comments that the main hindrance to the allowing of euthanasia has proved to be the objection that, even if they were morally acceptable in certain 'hard cases ', voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could not be effectively controlled; society would slide down a 'slippery slope ' to the killing of patients who did not make a free and informed request, or for whom palliative care would have offered an alternative. But that would not be the case as the process for choosing euthanasia is an extensive and thorough examination of the patient. According to Sikora and Lewins (2007) terminally ill people can have their quality of life severely damaged by physical conditions such as incontinence, nausea and vomiting,