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”).
Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
The tension with euthanasia lies between the ethical obligation to diminish suffering, especially in terminally ill patients who settle on a cognizant choice to end their life, and the forbidding against association by doctors and other health experts in the ending of a life. Executing another person is morally degrading because it
Callahan first goes on to state that euthanasia is different from suicide in that it involves not only the right of a person to self-determination, but the transfer of the right to kill to the acting agent (presumably a physician) as well. This right, however, is temporary and restricted to killing the patient only. It is not clear why this temporary transfer makes euthanasia wrong, for if this is wrong, then letting a patient die (in the case where the patient already has the assistance of life-supporting equipment) is also wrong, if there is no distinction between killing and letting die. So, we must return to this argument after addressing Callahan's claims of a distinction between killing and allowing to die. The argument for the distinction is based on the cause of death.
According to Rachels, the major deciding factor in determining the morality of a route of euthanasia is the physician’s intention. Regardless of whether or not the doctor chooses to pursue the active or passive route, the intention to perform euthanasia in order to prevent any more futile pain for an already dying patient remains constant. Therefore, if one accepts that euthanasia is morally permissible, one cannot say to a doctor who intends to perform such a procedure that he is a better or worse person morally for choosing one route over the other. Several objections can be raised to this point of view such as the fact that the passive case is to be encouraged because actively euthanizing a person would be easily likened to murder while the passive
Without a living will this cannot be done. The decision to allow a patient to end his or her life is clearly not an easy one. The courts feel that unless there is a living will to state what the patient would want to be done, the authorities must try to save the patient. The law does not require that everything must be done to keep a patient alive. Some people feel that keeping a patient alive against his or her wishes is not only cruel and inhumane, but it is also contrary to law and practice.
It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two types. Supporters of active euthanasia base their defense on "One, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person for his or her life to be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and/or indignity. Two, the individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others; since no one is harmed by terminally ill patients' undergoing active euthanasia..." (Mappes 57). The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong.
He believes euthanasia denies our basic human characteristic to survive through all medical problems and by taking the easy way out we may be “regarding ourselves as something less than human” (p.9, Williams). In addition, euthanasia does not leave room for the patient to have sudden recovery or fight through the pain and attempt to survive. According to Williams, this may confuse the person into thinking they only have death as an option when it is possible they could survive. Lastly, his support for euthanasia is the effect it has on medical care. Not only will euthanasia be seen
Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers. Doctors’ and physicians’ technical ambition is purely to treat patients that they encounter. This common knowledge contributes to the obvious position that stands against physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia.
When seeing a pet suffer from either illness or injury, the humane thing to do is to end their suffering. Why would this be any different for human beings? Every person should be given the freedom and the right to end their life by choice if it avoids prolonging pain and suffering. The most argued issue with assisted suicide is grounded in morals and religion. The sanctity of life is the philosophy that human life is sacred and should be protected from any form of v... ... middle of paper ... ...ice environment to be emotionally straining and a constant reminder of ones mortality as death is frequently witnessed.