Kant, Velleman and Thomson put together a series of arguments over whether or not it is morally right to offer terminally ill patients the option of being helped to die by their doctors or care takers and how. From Kant’s perspective, morality is about the relationship between motives and action. This knowledge of morals comes from reasoning about what could be a law for human action. According to Kant, actions are done for a reason, reasons in turn are general and apply to all rational creatures. However reasons do not necessitate us, reason only commands us. A command or imperative suggests what we ought to do, but it is also something which we can fail to do. Kant views this as the gap between recognizing something is right and actually doing it. Kant declares that he is an Autonomist, and “Autonomy is […] the ground of a human and of every rational nature.” (Kant, 4:436). While both Thomson and Velleman agree that the autonomy of the people should treated with respect, they both interpret this to have conclusions that not only differ from Kant’s view, but have very different consequences from each other’s as well. On one hand Velleman argues that respect of people’s autonomy does not force us to make euthanasia a protected option that it is formally provided and on which the patient has exclusive authority. While on the other side of the argument Thomson claims that the respect of people’s autonomy requires us to do so. After briefly laying out each argument, I will defend Thomson’s argument by objecting that Velleman’s point of view on giving a patient the right to die is not giving the patient a new option so much as merely restoring an option lost to them by the state of their condition.
The argument of Kant...
... middle of paper ...
...nuing to follow this logic, one could extend this to suggest that by giving an incapacitated patient a right to die we are not giving him a new option whatsoever. Under this circumstance it rationally appears that we are restoring a previously held right to an option lost to them by the state of their condition. After all, if Velleman truly stands by his own logic that “Our ability to justify our choices to the people around us is what enables us to sustain the role of rational agent in our dealings with them; and it is therefore essential to our remaining, in their eyes, and eligible partner in cooperation and conversation, or an appropriate object of respect” (Velleman, pg. 11), than as a rational agent he must follow his own logic as we have laid out in our objection and thus personifying why I am more inclined to side with Thomson’s side of the argument.
Another instance of how someone’s right to bodily autonomy can surpass the right to life can be understood when thinking about end of life scenarios. Marquis’s argument suggests it would be immoral for a doctor to take a comatose patient off life support, even if the patient previously arranged to be taken off life support. Following Marquis’s logic because a person in a vegetative state could theoretically wake up in the future, a doctor would be obligated to keep them on life support against their wishes. Additionally, as Marquis briefly mentions in his paper, people suffering from terminal illness must also be denied euthanasia (197). In find it troubling that Marquis seems to have arbitrarily decided that even adult human beings do not have the right to make medical decisions that would greatly lessen their suffering. Additionally, Marquis’s argument also suggests that committing suicide would not only be immoral,
Even though Barbara’s intentions in this paper are directly stated, her claims she gives does not back her argument at all. After reading her major claim, which states that we do not have the right to die (97), I feel the complete opposite of what she thinks and I believe a person should have the right to die if there is no chance of them getting better in the future. The author’s grounds explained all of the struggles of keeping a very sick man alive, which I believe gave me some very good evidence to write my counter argument.
The idea that people have free will, and use it to make decisions about themselves in their own best interest can go on to create a slippery-slope mentality - Because we executed one murderer, we can execute every murderer, no matter their reasoning! Singer’s article focuses on classic hedonistic utilitarianism, and questions why patients are not given the option for assisted suicide in some states and countries. His question is a double-edged sword for the philosophy; ending the ability to let an individual think freely is irrational, yet taking away someone’s autonomy is just as bad. The struggle of doing what one ought to do, while strengthening the utility of the action, with respect to the law and strengthening the law’s utility, comes with a price.... ...
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.
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
Daniel Challahan attempts to argue that Euthanasia is always seriously morally wrong in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok.” Callahan discusses several reasons depicting why he believes that Euthanasia is morally impermissible. John Lachs, however, does not see validity in several of Callahan’s points and responds to them in his article, “When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok.” Two points from Callahan’s article Lachs challenges are the fundamental moral wrong view and the subjectiveness of suffering.
The so-called ‘right to life’ debate has been beaten to death with no resolution in sight…but what of the ‘right to die’ issue? In California, legislation was passed last year that allows terminally ill patients, who are not expected to live more than six months, to request physician-assisted suicide. However, as with the other four states that have adopted similar legislation, the patient must be capable of administering the lethal drug to himself or herself, medical personnel are not required to participate in any way, and the relief does not benefit any others, such as quadriplegics or those suffering from chronic debilitating diseases("State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide"). Therefore, healthcare professionals can choose to follow their own moral values regardless of the patient’s wishes…and they do. The option to choose not to follow a patient’s wishes, or to deny assistance, steps squarely on the personal rights and freedoms of the
... in terms of living or dying. By this logic, people in vegetative states should also have rights analogous to that of an infant at least. Many people practice or research medicine for the altruistic reasons and derive pleasure and a purpose in life by restoring the injured and sick to proper health. If a potential treatment can be developed by doctors and researchers to restore people in vegetative states to normal cognitive levels, it would be considered wrong to allow such a person to die because, like an infant, there exists the chance for them to develop an ability to function as long as research is continued to find a way to reverse such a condition.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. 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
Callahan is in opposition to the belief that the essence of human dignity is the notion that a person should be free to choose how and when they want to die. Callahan questions the absolute nature of autonomy and self-determination and the extent to which these values can be applied. Self-determination by definition entails human freedom of action and respect for persons but those in support of PAS want it to be restricted to those who are terminally ill. Human suffering and an individual‘s outlook on the quality of their life, are, in Callahan’s opinion, subjective and there is no one standard to compare individual suffering. If we just focus on autonomy/self-determination, why restrict PAS only to those who are terminally ill and competent? Are the incompetent less deserving of relief from suffering than the those competent individuals? If physician-assisted suicide is legally permitted yet restricted to the terminally ill adult with full decision-making capacity, it will certainly raise legal concerns about discrimination. PAS will probably broaden to include incompetent, non-consenting, and non–terminally ill persons. The final extreme of the slippery slope argument is that PAS will be abused, run amok and ultimately become involuntary euthanasia.
Death. This is not a topic that many people are comfortable discussing. It is such an uncomfortable topic to discuss because regardless if death is brought upon through natural death, murder, suicide, or even euthanasia, it brings upon such a wide variety of emotions to those affected that I believe no one can grow accustomed to. Stemming from this, we get into the debate of euthanasia vs. murder vs. suicide, and the ethics behind the three. Before considering the differences between the them, we should first be able to define ethics and morals. Nowadays, these two terms can be considered very similar, and are said to be the sort of principles that decide a person’s behavior and actions. Ethics and morals play a big role when discussing these topics, as people are quick to argue that euthanasia and murder can be considered the same. Through this paper, I will argue their differences, and how most aspects of euthanasia can be considered morally different and better than murder. Additionally, my perspective of how suicide compares and differs to these two will also be introduced.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
We arrive into this world without a choice; and depart just the same. In the movie “Million Dollar Baby”, Maggie Fitzgerald’s fictional character is a prime example active euthanasia. Maggie’s decision to die is morally acceptable, but it is not ethically acceptable by philosopher James Rachels’ argument. Maggie’s decision was not ethically permissible because she violated Kant’s categorical imperative “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end” by asking her trainer, Frankie Dunn, to kill her. Rachels’ argument shows that Maggie’s euthanasia, her decision to die, was morally acceptable. However, Rachels’ never mentions ethics in his argument on the “Morality of Euthanasia”. We cannot conclude from Rachels’ argument that Maggie’s choice was ethically acceptable. James Rachels’ argument on euthanasia does not render Maggie’s Fitzgerald’s decision to die, ethically acceptable.
On the other hand, the proposition has previously argued that Euthanasia spares a terminally ill person from suffering intolerable pain and that it is cruel to deny a person’s right to die. We believe It is not our choice when or how to conclude our lives as we owe our lives to God and to God. If it was God’s plan for us to suffer, then we must obey. his orders. We believe that there may be value in a person’s