Euthanasia often surfaces in mainstream news as being a highly controversial issue, with strong arguments for both positions. To be clear, euthanasia can be defined as the following, “Intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person” (Gay-Williams, 781). There are also several other distinctions that classify euthanasia as either active or passive, based on the level of action involved, or as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary, based on the level of consent (Dittmer). However, in this paper, when I use the term euthanasia, I am speaking of euthanasia in any of its forms. Thus, I will argue that all forms of euthanasia are morally impermissible. Lastly, I will assess an objection to my argument, but in the end show that …show more content…
The second premise is true, because given the definition of euthanasia, no one is being saved by the act, but only the opposite, someone is being killed. For an action to be considered euthanasia, three conditions must be met: there must be the taking of a life, the person whose life is taken must be suffering from a disease with a terminal prognosis, and the action must be intentional (Gay-Williams, 781). Accordingly, it is evident that there is no aspect of self-defense in this case, and no one’s life is being saved in the process of euthanasia. Therefore, it is true that euthanasia is an action that involves the taking of someone’s life, without the saving of another’s life.
Therefore, given the preceding reasons for the truth of the premises, and the valid argument form, modus ponens, the argument against euthanasia is sound. In defense of the premises, I utilized the moral theory of natural law. For this theory, an action is judged to be moral or immoral based on it being in accord with the natural law or not. This natural law is built into our very nature as human beings, so an action is moral if it is consistent with our nature. I used this moral theory to show that the desire to survive is a part of our natural law, and thus euthanasia is against our natural law as human beings.
One might object to my argument by way of utilitarian reasoning. In
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
Source: Weisstub, D. N., & Mishara, B. L. (2016). International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Premises and Evidence in the Rhetoric of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, 36(5-6), 427-435.
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.
There is a widely shared view that active and passive euthanasia are importantly different. It is said to be one thing (passive euthanasia) to let patients die, which may sometimes be permissible, but it is quite another (active euthanasia) to kill them, which never is. This discrimination between two forms of euthanasia has been forcefully attacked by certain philosophers on the ground that the underlying distinction between killing and letting die is either not clear or, if clear, not morally important. This paper defends that there is distinction between killing and letting die. My first argument that will defend my thesis will be based on the definition of killing or letting to die and the difference in the intentions that accompany the
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
First, If the harmed vulnerable are in majority of the physician-assisted euthanasia, very unlikely, there is clearly something wrong here and euthanasia should never be legalized because it is causing way more harm than good. However, if the physician-assisted euthanasia is not legalized due to few cases of those vulnerable being harmed by it, we are potentially ignoring the majority of the competent patient who want it now cannot get it because it is illegal to everyone. (650c1) Secondly, legalizing physician-assisted euthanasia would reassure the right to the patient, similar to patient’s right to their own treatment. lastly, legalizing physician-assisted euthanasia allow those terminally ill patients now have second options rather than coursing through life-sustaining treatment that in most cases are painful and agonizing, it is more humane to end life quickly and peacefully. (651c1) Therefore, even if few cases of vulnerable populations being harmed by physician-assisted euthanasia, we should not ignore the fact that legalizing it would yield much higher good than
By the end of this essay it should be easier for us to understand whether euthanasia is morally permissible, with the help of analyzing Foot’s argument.
Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.
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
In James Rachel’s article Active and Passive Euthanasia, James provides the argument that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia because in the end, either through inaction or action, it both results in death and there are no moral differences in ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. Rachel provides several different arguments to support his case including a patient dying of terminal cancer, and two uncles and the death of their nephews.
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.
Therefore, deliberately ending the life of a person who is hopelessly and painfully suffering from a terminating disease should morally and legally be accepted in the society. Steck et al emphasize that moral, natural and the legal controversial tag of war could be solved, especially as whether doctors and/or family members should allow the patient to die peacefully by ending his/her life (937). Whichever the case, Euthanasia remains one of the most controversial practice/act and drawn economically developed and developing nations into unrelenting debates. The
All in all, euthanasia ends the patients and his family sufferings yet, it shouldn’t be legalized. Euthanasia should not be practiced because we all deserve to live. It is like killing and no one but God can take somebody's life. Consequently, Death is not the answer for any issue when there is an opportunity to tackle those issues while we are still
Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.
Death has always been a controversial topic throughout the world. There are many theories as to where we go and what the meaning of life truly is. How one dies is important in today’s society, especially when it comes to the idea of suicide. Active euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering. It is illegal in some places, like France, but allowing patients to die is authorized by law in other places under certain conditions. Doug McManaman constructed an argument, “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” to defend his view that active euthanasia is never morally