Euthanasia Is Not A Bad Thing

In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.

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

A. Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

In the article, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, J. Gay-Williams asserts that euthanasia is both morally impermissible and imprudent. This paper will focus on active-voluntary euthanasia as morally permissible by objecting to some of the arguments made by the author, who defines euthanasia as “intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person. Whether the life is one’s own or that of another…” (Vaughn 278). While Gay-Williams presents four arguments against euthanasia, the second argument, “of self-interest,” argues that euthanasia is imprudent, has short-comings and is thus flawed. In this paper, I will explain Gay-Williams’ argument of Self-Interest, following with concerns to how these arguments do not fully encompass the idea

Out of the 196 countries in the world, only nine countries have legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide,” a quote brought up by Storypick. (). Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics currently, but what can euthanasia offer patients and people all around the United States? People have different opinions and facts about euthanasia; so what are the pros and cons? In the end, euthanasia should be legalized because people will face pain mental and physical, people’s opinions should not be deterred as well with a death that will contain dignity, despite the moral thoughts it goes against. 10.2

People who die of a prolonged illness or had a predictable steady decline due to a condition like heart disease, diabetes, or Alzheimer’s disease account for ninety percent of deaths each year (Girsh 45). Most of the people who died suffered greatly because of their disease. However, if euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide was legal, the suffering could have been severely lessened. People who oppose both options have many reasons why euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should not be legal. The Hippocratic Oath, the fear they could be abused by the poor, Nazi-styled teachings might return, or people may feel coerced, and the right to die is not an actual right are a few examples of what the people who oppose euthanasia or physician-assisted

Assisted suicide is a significant topic that worries individuals everywhere throughout the United States. Some are against it on account of religious and other reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some conveys a negative connotation; similar to that of murder. 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

Patients suffering from terminal illnesses, battle feeling worthless and hopeless on a daily basis. This is due to our jurisdiction forcing them to live. The number of people suffering continues to increase. Although a doctor’s position is to prolong life, euthanasia should be considered in certain cases. Because of the advances in technology euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are now an option for terminally ill patients who are going to suffer from an incurable and painful disease or are in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized because the public supports it, it would only be used for patients who are terminally ill, and it alleviates unnecessary suffering. The word euthanasia originates

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

Euthanasia, in today’s world, is a word with opposing meanings. Originally, it meant “a good death” (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Since the legalization of euthanasia around the world in the early 1990’s, the meaning has changed. Several pro-euthanasia sites would call it a humane and peaceful way to end the dying process, by either stopping the course of treatment or the use of lethal doses of medications (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Con-euthanasia activists are most concerned about the slippery slope idea, being euthanasia is only a half-way house to legalizing murder (Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org, 2016). When discussing a topic so sensitive as death, an invisible line appears between a right way and a wrong way to die. By the end of this paper, the hope is to have an educated discussion regarding some social and political inquiries surrounding euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.

In J. Gay-Williams’ piece “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”, he begins by asserting that euthanasia is gaining popularity within our society, then defines euthanasia, and finally offers retributions as to why euthanasia is neither morally nor practically right. According to Gay-Williams, “euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person” (Gay-Williams 1979, 278). Based off aspects of his definition, Gay-Williams formats his three main arguments against active euthanasia which stem from nature, self-interest, and practical effects. Out of the three proposed arguments, the argument from nature stands out personally, as the least sound. Briefly stated, this argument is not sound because it fails to offer distinction

Preview Statement: Today, I will provide some important and useful information about euthanasia. Specifically, I will discuss euthanasia ends the pain, is about giving people the right to choose how they want to live and die, and it also stops the person from having a bad quality of life, and saves money in medical bills.

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.