Is Life Sacred? Essay

Euthanasia has been a controversial topic since the ancient Greek physicians. The word euthanasia has been used since the history of medicine. The Greek physicians or Hippocrates took an oath that they would never give their patients anything even if they requested it. The Hippocratic Oath has been used since 2,300 years ago until today (Harrigan). In the seventeenth century, American common law has punished people who have committed mercy killing. Then in the Enlightenment, writers “assaulted the church’s authority” of the teachings of euthanasia (“Historical Timeline”). A author from the Historical timeline said that if someone “condemned suicide as a wrong” and injures people and the community, then it “violates God’s authority over life.” The author says that someone killed a person or was asked to, then it violates God’s authority to give life to that person.

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

David Swenson, who was born in Sweden and was a professor of University of Minnesota. He is well-known to the public for his publication of the article called “The Dignity of Human Life”, which was originally published in 1949 and currently still could be found in many philosophy books (Klemke, 2008). The article of “The dignity of Human life” contains several different valuable ideas of the subject to human life and also includes some great conclusions at the final.

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

The soul is a non-material substance that somehow has a connection with one’s living body (Weisberg, January 2016). When the body dies, the connection between mind and physical being is broken (Weisberg, January 2016). After death, the body will rot away and parish. However, one’s soul, being a non-material substance, can not be destroyed, and with that, it is possible for a person, rather, a person’s soul and who they are, to live on after death (Weisberg, January

Physician assisted death, often referred to as death with dignity or euthanasia, is a practice that is debated globally and practiced limitedly. It is when a physician helps a patient with a terminal condition carry out their elective death, usually through prescriptions or other medical means. The debate regarding this controversial practice has many sides, one being the defense of the sanctity of life. This claim operates on the premise that human lives have innate value as determined by God, and therefore physician assisted death is an unjust practice and an invalidation of the worth of human life. However, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sartre, it becomes evident that each individual creates and determines their own significance,

For the most part, everybody throughout the world views life as sacred. In America, we see this in our laws which serve justice to those that have killed, and in our constitution alongside liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right. It is generally agreed upon that most everybody would rather not die, and for that matter, would rather not see other people die as well. In short, barring serial killers and psychopaths, almost everybody supports life. However, when discussing the death and life of certain people, such as terminally ill patients and those sentenced to die by the court (capital punishment), a fair deal of disagreement arises. Within the politically fueled discussions that seem to dominate today’s discourse, we

Being alive means embracing what you have and making the best out of it. You assign value to life by choosing to be happy even when it seems impossible. I do not think that Illness and suffering should impact how we should value life because it shouldn't take a tragedy for us to realize how valuable it is. This reminds me of Roger Ebert, although he was dying from sickness he didn't let that determine how he would live his life. The way he handles dying is beautiful and surprising. I wish that we could all have this type of mindset like him because life is what you make

However, it is not an argument of which life holds more value. The argument is that it is immoral to subdue animals to inhumane conditions for the purposes of efficiency and human food consumption.

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

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?

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

The idea of the soul varies widely in religious tradition. While these variations exist, its basic definition is unvarying. The soul can be described as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The soul is seen as the core principle of life or as the essence of a being 1. Views on the permanence of the soul vary throughout religious tradition as well. While some view it as a mortal entity in flux others believe the soul is an immortal and permanent unit. These interpretations vary from time period to time period and between religions. These characteristics of the soul are interpreted differently through an Eastern or

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 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.