The Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

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.

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!

Euthanasia can helps the patient in many positive ways.Therefore, euthanasia or assisted suicide should be legal all over the world. People who oppose euthanasia claim that it is wrong since it devalues human life. They say euthanasia is not different from murder because it involves killing a person. They think that by legalizing euthanasia, society would accept the doctor’s decision to kill terminally ill people. Besides, some doctors might then choose the shortest way out, helping people die instead of helping them recover.

It’s based on the idea that if we start allowing medical organizations to “pull the plug” then the government will soon be able to murder patients without their consent for various reasons. The argument has at least two fallacies, False equivalence and Fallacy of division however for the sake of covering all the related points I’ll explain more about it. Individuals who use this argument believe that supporting active euthanasia and having the idea publicly acceptable will lead the community to gradually accept non-voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. They also believe that the legalization of voluntary euthanasia will lead to a spectrum of consequences that were unaccounted for such

There are many different reasons why people would want to euthanize someone, but here are just a few of them. The reasons are – to put themselves out of the misery of their terminal illness, as they only see physical and emotional pain in their future because some rules are better than none, human beings have the right to die how and when they want to because sometimes a life is just not worth living anymore and euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources. One acting on their own violation, with their right mind should be able to make a decision on how they live and die without a government or religious group interfere. Euthanasia should be

In this paper I have argued that: Health professionals should aim to improve health and suffering and not kill because it becomes overbearing, If hospitals had good palliative care then euthanasia wouldn’t be necessary, A patient who is in the process of dying isn’t in the right state of mind to make a decision such as ending their life, If euthanasia becomes legal, it doesn’t allow research to find cures for chronic illnesses, Euthanasia gives too much power to the doctors, Euthanasia destroys societal respect for life, and Giving the doctors this much power essentially leads to a variation of murder. Therefore, it is morally wrong for someone to kill a person; even it is on medical terms.

Euthanasia should be legalize in the United States because it gives an alternative for people who suffer every day due to a terminal illness, but it should be the last resort a patient should take. People who are against euthanasia claim that it is unethical and morally wrong to take someone’s life away. According to the article “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” euthanasia is a nice word that replaces the word murder (Doug). The author claims that people will use “terminal illness” to murder people without their consent. People that are on a vegetable state and cannot depend of themselves are force to accept the decisions of others.

Although people who are terminally ill should not be forced to stay alive nor to suffer, the alternative, euthanasia, is against the law, for it pressures people emotionally and psychologically into death, and it is not a reliever of pain. Suicide has been legalized in the United States, and some think it’s only fair to do the same with euthanasia. Since suicide has been made legal, there are more suicides everyday than homicides, but suicide and euthanasia are quite different and should not be confused with each other. Suicide is a tragic event dealing with one person acting by him or her self, but euthanasia is not about a private act. It is one person doing something that directly kills another.

On the other end, such assistance, or methods, are considered as a form of murder. As a “mercy killing”, people often inaccurately voice that human euthanasia is in a patient's best interests, disregarding the threats of: the slippery slope effect, no regulatory system, and sanctity of life infringement. A frequent argument against the legalization of human euthanasia is that it will begin a slippery slope towards involuntary (euthanizing of a patient without his or her consent) and non-voluntary (euthanizing of a patient not capable of giving consent) euthanasia . Society is only looking to legalize voluntary euthanasia, but the doors will open to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, two methods of death that could easily be written off as murder. 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”).

In active euthanasia, a physician or family member takes the life of a patient by means of lethal injection, before he or she dies of a terminal illness or injury. Currently, passive euthanasia is prohibited in most states, but not all. Whereas, active euthanasia is illegal in every state. Although many people believe that euthanasia is a way for people to die with dignity, it is the deliberate taking of a human life and should be banned because it is a clear form of murder. Of course, supporters of euthanasia do not agree that this is an act of murder, but rather they see it as an act of mercy.