It affirms life and regards death as a normal process, neither hastening nor postponing death, but providing relief from suffering” (“Anti-euthanasia”). With this information, the advocates should focus more on giving patients the correct and sufficient medical care that they need rather than finding a way to end lives from suffering. Euthanasia should not be legalized because the effects will cause much turmoil on both religious and moral standards, and the government should not be given control over the deaths of their citizens, especially when there are different steps that can be taken to prevent this hastened life-ending process. Euthanasia is not solely about a person’s ‘right to die’, but the consequences, evidence, and history described to show how grim euthanasia has and will become.
Judging from the analysis of the term, ‘mercy killing’ assumes... ... middle of paper ... ...qually wrong. Conclusion ‘Mercy’, ‘dignity’, ‘good’ and ‘self-determination’ are the moral basis that the advocates for euthanasia defend. How appealing they sound, their accounts are simply an attempt to escape from dying process, through which we still hold our existence. The argument of pro-euthanasia might suggest that we are able to control over our life and death without moral conflict because such values related to euthanasia can justify the action of killing. By contrast, I argue that euthanasia is fundamentally wrong because it involves killing.
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.
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.
The argument for the distinction is based on the cause of death. In the classic example of a doctor unplugging life-sustaining equipment, the cited cause of death is disease or... ... middle of paper ... ... I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold. Works Cited MI: Narveson, Jan, ed.
Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as “bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person” (Pojman). The term implies that the death is intentional. Because there are several different types of euthanasia, it is difficult to make a blanket statement concerning the morality of euthanasia. This paper will discuss the particular morality of the passive and active forms of involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary euthanasia.
If society accepts euthanasia, it will weaken society’s high view of life. Furthermore, if society allows euthanasia of a patient due to the economic considerations, do we not expect this same society to euthanize the mentally challenged and physically disabled. Euthanasia might just end up making society accept the notion that some lives are worth less than others; and that is unacceptable. It is argued that sometimes the motive behind euthanasia is “good” because it can end ones suffering. Nonetheless, euthanasia is not a good excuse to commit murder and take the life of an innocent human being, as there are other methods to help a person.
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.
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.
According to the first perspective, it is unethical insofar as it interferes with God’s wishes that a person die. In relation to the second, the unethical aspect emerges from the fact that many doctors are no longer fulfilling their professional duty to reduce suffering but are, in reality, prolonging and intensifying it. Thus, to support passive euthanasia means supporting traditional religious and medical ethics. That is, the simple right to a natural and humane death, with as little extension of suffering as possible.