George ALS Argument Against Euthanasia

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

One of the Ten Commandments put forward by God to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai. The killing of another human being is morally wrong and unacceptable. No one has the right to take away another persons life, whether it be through hatred and disgust, or compassion and love. Murder is murder. So why should those select few who work in the clinics of Switzerland, whose occupation is to assist in a person’s suicide, become immune from this law against murder. It is them who provide the patient with, and administer, the method of how they are going to die. To me, that sounds like murder.

Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death.

As euthanasia has become a prevalent topic in our society, many opinions have formed regarding the morality of it and whether it goes against Christian beliefs. Two opposing points of view, both written by Christians, explore this topic. John Shelby Spong argues in his article “Euthanasia Does Not Violate Christian Beliefs” that Christians need to reevaluate their view on assisted suicide and that it should be an individual choice. Chris Armstrong argues against euthanasia in the article “Christianity Condemns Voluntary Euthanasia” and contends that as Christians, we should never support the taking of life. While both authors agree that passive euthanasia

Euthanasia is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

Being Christians and disciples of Christ means that we embrace those who are dieing and not provide them with the means of dying. An easy and fast solution would be self assisted suicide but, Christians are called to be strong throughout situations and should not expect the easy or fast approach. We should choose to do what is right, the humane thing in life, as well as spread our faith. Physician- Assisted suicide is wrong since we are inhabitants of God's world, and do not process the ability or right to take a life and are called to be strong at all times while spreading God's message. In clear words, God has instructed us not to kill, and to love our neighbor as

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society (EXIT) believes that faced with terminal illness, pain or a useless existence, for which there is no cure, everyone should be able to turn to "…..the mercy of a painless death"(). God is love. Christianity is love and compassion. Keeping someone in pain and suffering is not loving, it is evil. Euthanasia can be the most loving action, and the best way of putting agape love into practice.

Even after unfortunately diagnosing George with ALS, Buddhists view his soul, mind, and body as codependent and interconnected entities. Mercy killing, according to Buddhists beliefs, cannot be justified (Visser, 2016). Should George opt for the mercy killing of his bodily form, his spirit will be condemned and will lead to penalty in the next life. Spiritual development can be maximized by upholding the excellent health of the body. George should, in this manner, ruminate over his affliction and be high with his current frame in order to have a happy existence, free of agony in his progressive

Is euthanasia murder or is it actually saving someone from extra pain and suffering? This is just one of the questions that are causing so much debate in our society today. Should euthanasia be illegal?

John Finnis, in his article A Philosophical Case Against Euthanasia, provides a compelling theoretical framework through which to view contemporary discourse surrounding euthanasia. First, this paper will draw on Finnis' position in order to establish the natural law understanding of the intrinsic value of human life. It will be argued that the right to life comes from a source other than the individual who is alive, or his family or caregivers, granting it either implicitly or explicitly. It will further be argued that the individual's duty not to have oneself euthanized, or euthanize another, is not an incident of any special responsibility that one assumes or undertakes, but is a straightforward incident of an ordinary duty everyone owes his

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

Humans, like all animals, attempt to evade death. Though death is usually seen as an unwanted end, some see it as an alternative to suffering. Most people cringe at the thought of suicide, but is euthanasia the same thing? Do human beings have the right to choose death?

A teacher I once had in high school would often talk about her father who lived in hospice care. Her father suffered from dementia and had been for years. She would often talk about how on his “good” days he would plead her husband to put a pillow on his head and suffocate him, to take him out of his misery. If it was legal, her husband would have willingly helped her father and put him out of his misery, however in the state of North Carolina, physician-assisted suicide is illegal. Luckily, her father passed away this year and is finally free of pain and suffering. However, if physician-assisted suicide was legal, her father would not have had to suffer as long as he did.

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.

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