The life of a human being is a gift. To treat it in any other way would be degrading life’s inherent worth. Many different moral dilemmas are associated with human euthanasia. The extreme ends of the controversial subject suggests, by the advocates, that euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is a type of mercy killing. On the other end, such assistance, or methods, are considered as a form of murder.
Active Euthenasia – From A Kantian Perspective Euthanasia is one of society's more widely debated moral issues of our time. Active euthanasia is; "Doing something, such as administering a lethal drug, or using other ways that will cause a person's death." In the other hand, Passive euthanasia is; "Stopping (or not starting) a treatment, that will make a person die, the condition of the person will cause his or her death." It seems that this one is not to debate, as much as the other one (active). I have chosen to look more closely at the issue of active euthanasia, and that it should not be considered ethical, by Kantian standards.
As well, Euthanasia is the proper term for mercy killing – Practice purposely ending a life in order to ease pain and misery. At present Euthanasia is not acceptable to be practiced on people in most States. However, individuals should have the right to end his or her life by Euthanasia because of the individual freedom, suffering caused by disease
It arrived from the prefix “eu”, meaning fear, easy, and fortunate and from the word “thanatos” meaning death. The main idea of Euthanasia is that someone has a conscientious death or a fortunate one. In other words, we attempt to ease one’s pain by murdering another human being to give him/her a so-called “easy death” which is illegal and morally wrong. The key element of one human being taking the life of another human being is not present. It is exactly this element that causes euthanasia to be morally wrong (Gay-Williams,288) There are different cases that might be hard to distinguish whether it is, or isn’t Euthanasia.
This also means an ordinary human right such as nutrition or hydration cannot be with held to induce death. The injury or disease must be the cause of death not the act of the withdrawing the life support system. Active euthanasia is the direct and intentional killing of someone when given consent or consent can’t be given. Active euthanasia usually takes the form of a lethal dose of medication to ensure a painless death. Active euthanasia has been requested by people suffering from diseases and syndromes that have reduced their quality of life to a point at which that believe that death is a better option than living in their pained and often vegetative state.
The argument of anti-euthanasia proponents is that euthanasia is immoral because life must be preserved and protected. However he preservation of life is subject to the self-determined choice of the person rather than the doctor 's choice. Like murder infringes on a person 's right to life by violate the element of choice in the persons death. Therefore a murderer will be executed because of taking away an innocent person’s life. 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.
The Doctrine can be considered a simple prohibition of murder, ensuring that doctors do not without ordinary care, because doing so would be considered killing. Rachels example seen convincing because they deal with withholding ordinary care but he fails to distinguish ordinary from extraordinary, then attacks the lack of ordinary care. This can be found in the Downs Syndrome Baby example, where severe down’s syndrome babies born with intestinal obstructions. Sometimes in such cases the baby is permitted to die. Rachels argues that in such cases we find compelling moral grounds for preferring active euthanasia to passive euthanasia in the vastly greater degree of suffering involved in letting the baby die.
We all die in an innumerable amount of ways and our autonomous decision to choose Active Euthanasia or PAS should be respected as should our choice to refuse euthanasia. The act of killing a patient, who has chosen to have a quick death, in my opinion, does not have the same ethical implications as letting a patient die when that patient can no longer bear living. I conclude that it is usually better to kill a patient if their life has become unbearable and they foresee no recovery of an acceptable quality of life, rather than to prolong the life which is unwanted.
The two authors, Andre and Velasquez, explain the duties and obligations of assisting death, and preserving life. Through the analysis of Andre and Velasquez’s article, and the evaluation of assisted suicide in terms of deontology and utilitarianism, it will be argued that assisted suicide is justifiable and morally right. In Andre and Velasquez’s article, they argue that assisted suicide is both right and wrong, which can be justified. Using deontology, they state that humans have the duty to eliminate the sufferings of fellow humans and to respect their dignity (Andre, and Velazquez). They explain that assisted suicide is a dignified way to die in order to preserve dignity and end suffering.
Which is a factual statement in that it states that if someone is dead they obviously cannot participate in future events. In Marquis’ second premise, he states that by not allowing a human being to have those future experiences your action is prima facie (accepted as correct until proven otherwise) morally wrong. Marquis argues about how it is wrong to kill someone but it is even worse than other crimes because you are taking away that person’s future and values. Marquis argues how not allowing a child to live is morally wrong to our society because they also have a future and experiences they would miss out on just like all human beings. So Marquis is communicating that fetuses, infants, adults are all human beings and it would be