Euthanasia J. Gay-Williams Analysis

Essentially, euthanasia denies human dignity because it removes any possibility of achieving the natural end goal of survival. Human dignity, according to Gay-Williams, is inherently connected with morality and so the loss of it correlates directly to immorality. In-between the formatted argument, Gay-Williams offers further details as to why natural occurrences provide support against euthanasia. It is stated that the organization of human bodies (immune response) and behavioral tendencies (fight or flight) support the claim that the continuation of life is a natural goal, since these are related to the preservation and continuation of life. Furthermore, it is stated that euthanasia acts against these human characteristics to destroy them in a way disease and injury would not. So to say, the choice to abruptly end a life is more unforgiving towards the immune responses and physiological reactions, insinuates that we would be gradually diminished by disease and injury. The key statement which explains the argument from nature is that euthanasia puts an end to the most revered life goal of survival and is therefore morally wrong.

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 this essay, we are going to analyze the main ideas included in “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels to provide a response to the following question: Does James Rachels in “The Morality of Euthanasia” successfully argue that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable?

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

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.

This essay will aim to focus on the arguments that author, James Rachel’s presents in his article, Active and Passive Euthanasia,” In his article Rachel’s argues that both passive and active euthanasia are morally permissible and the doctors that is supported by the American Medical Association(AMA) is believed to be unsound. In this paper I will offer a thorough analysis of Rachel’s essay then so offer a critique in opposition of his arguments. In conclusion I will refute these oppositions claims by defending Rachel’s argument, and showing why I believe his claims that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, to be effective.

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of putting an end to a patient’s life for the purpose of ending the patients suffering. But can it ever be right to kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering? To kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering, is considered homicide. Over the past years euthanasia has been defeated and become illegal in every country besides Netherland and Belgium. I am afraid that if euthanasia could have been legalised in those two countries, it’s a matter of time; the whole world would approval and soon follows the Dutch’s example of ‘good and easy death.’ Once legalised, euthanasia will become a means of health care containment, will become involuntary and would not only apply for the terminally ill,

First of all, it is inevitable that the argument “euthanasia being morally permissible” is relevant to the philosophical theory “Utilitarianism” which generally fixates on increasing happiness and decreasing misery to an

Gay-William, in his essay “the wrongfulness of euthanasia”, argued that that the fundamental nature and goal of human beings and other living things is to survive. He illustrates this with various biological body processes that function to sustain life. This processes include blood cloting and and the action of the white blood cells that fight pothogens in the body to prevent death from occurring. This process proves the point that continuity of life is a natural goal and remaining alive is the ultimate objective of all living organisms. Even the way we dash from the road to avoid being ran over by a vehicle shows that we dearly protect the precious gift of life that once lost can never be recovered. Therefore, euthanasia is in contrary to this fact because it goes against the very reason of human existence. It denies people a chance to live for an extra day, who knows another miracle might happen, and the person will regain their sound health. God warns against taking somebody’s life deliberately unless with a compelling reason. Only those who believe in that religion

By ruling euthanasia illegal, America's justice system is violating one of our most natural rights, our freedom of choice. In all respects, the right to die is as natural as the right to live. Webster's dictionary defines euthanasia as "an easy and painless death or an act or method of causing death painlessly." Euthanasia, when administered correctly and under the right conditions can be a humane and moral procedure. There are so many misconceptions and cliches surrounding euthanasia today that it has become very difficult to make an informed decision about the subject. By examining concepts, cases, and various ethical theories relating to euthanasia we are able to take a reasonable position on

Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

Euthanasia debate opposes two sides in which one side argues that letting someone suffer is not ethical and the other side defend that to help someone to die is not ethical based on the morality that no one should kill or help someone to die (fundamental right that everyone is allowed to live), they judge that euthanasia should compromise the criminal code. For my own morality, I am for the euthanasia possibility for the people in need to die for the reason of the person’s well-being.

Brandt argues for approval of euthanasia, but killing human beings is wrong, because it injures that person and goes against the preferences of self-preservation. However, Brandt says that the above is not present in the issue of euthanasia, so it may be permissible. Brandt says that not all killing is injury, so not all killing is wrong. One should pay attention to one’s expressed wishes he says. Euthanasia could be considered doing a person a favor, because you cannot injure something if you are relieving it of pain.

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