Kant And Euthanasia

Christians are mostly against euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that life is given by God, and that human beings are made in God's image this is told to us in Genesis 1:27 “So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”. As Christians our laws are based upon the 10 commandments, the 6th commandment is” thou shalt not kill” this commandment is connected to Euthanasia because you are killing a child before they have had the chance to experience life. John. Paul II view on Euthanasia is “Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.”

People, are incensed because in Muslim beliefs one is not allowed to commit suicide, which also applies to Christianity. (Source I). Several Journalists have also stated against euthanasia because they believe that life is truthfully sanctified and that “God” created life, so one cannot choose to die. (Source A). The Hippocratic oath as well specifically reads that doctors or physicians are not sanctioned to kill patients. (Source M). Even though many people are against euthanasia the citizens still want options for the end of their own life. (Source C). If the alternatives are inadequate and regulated the agony of the patients does not go away; numerous places have already legalized euthanasia, such as the Netherlands in 2002 being the first. Similarly, Japan’s Shintoists believe that people and patients should be sanctioned to die if they request for it. (Source C). In the Netherlands, 85 percent of the doctors will and can also consider facilitating patients and people in death. (Source B). Even though the Hippocratic oath states that doctors are not to kill their patients, there are two main forms of euthanasia- passive and active. (Source C). The two central forms of euthanasia do not go against regulations because subsequently those doctors have to be in accordance with the patients and people. (Source C).

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

According to Webster’s dictionary the term euthanasia Is defined as, “ the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering.” Now then there are two primary types of euthanasia according to Rachel’s. We have Passive Euthanasia in which the physician does nothing to bring about the death of the patient. By this physician doing nothing, ceasing treatment, the patient dies of the illness he already was diagnosed with. The patient dies of natural causes. The doctor is therefore letting the patient die. Then we have Active Euthanasia were the physician does something to bring about the death of the patient. The physician gives the terminally ill patient a lethal injection therefore now making the doctor the

" God made man in his own image, male and female he created them." Gen

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

1. Passive Euthanasia is when a patient chose to stop or not start their treatment or medication and allowing them to die.

Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason. Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its consequences. Based on these ideas, Kantianism propose that an action is good only if it performed out a 'good will '; which is the only thing that is good, in and of itself. To act out of a 'good will ', one must act in accordance with a categorical imperative. According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative, which is to "act only on that maxim in which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant, 528); and can also be formulated as "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant, 532). Essentially, the categorical imperative states that your actions must not result in a practical contradiction, which can be determined by conceptualizing all other people performing the same act. To illustrate, if I were

Many religions such as Protestantism, Buddhism, and Catholic go against Suicide in any form as well as some other religions. While this may be true, it goes against the constitution to entrust a religion on anybody. This being the case, Euthanasia patients should have the right to decide this. They should not be limited to other people’s beliefs. In the first amendment of the constitution, it prohibits the government from “encouraging or promot[ing]… religion in any way” ( ACLU 6). Exempting patients from Euthanasia because of religion is a form of discrimination amongst them. Religion should not take away the right to perform

When speaking of goodwill, it is important to point out that “for Kant, nothing is good except a good will” (Odianosen, n.d.). This thought process states that as long as the intended action is done out of goodwill, the results of the intended action are irrespective of the motives. When applied to euthanasia, both passive and active, as well as physician assisted suicide, it is up to the physician to determine the fate of the patient based upon their own perceived morals. Additionally, Kantian ethics brings out the idea of duty. Duty, as Odianosen points out “goes hand in hand with goodwill” (Odianosen, n.d.). The question raised, is how is our duty determined? And thus how do we know what our goodwill is based upon our duty? Enter the categorical imperative. In order to act according to the categorical imperative Kant, as quoted by Odianosen, believes that “we should act in such a way that we can all will the maxim of our actions to become a universal law” (Odianosen, n.d.). Kant’s idea of a maxim was a “subjective principle of an action, the principle or rule that people in effect formulate in determining their conduct” (Odianosen, n.d.). However, Odianosen points out that “Kant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly

Those who are against euthanasia may also believe that life is a sacred thing that isn’t ours to take. Many different religions believe this like Christianity, Jewish faith, and some Muslim faiths believe that god is the only one that can take a life. However, in America, we have freedom of religion. Patients who have these religions just won’t take this option. Those who are atheists, or have a religion that don’t believe in this have the option of euthanasia. America is a free country, where people have the choice of what they want to do. The religion of a few shouldn’t determine the life of people who don’t believe in it.

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.

The term Euthanasia is derived from the Greek words, Eu (good) and Thanatosis (death) meaning a very gentle and easy death. The definition of euthanasia has now come down to “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Therefore, this term can be also called “mercy killing”. In this sense euthanasia means the active or inactive death of a patient. This form of “easy death” for hopeless and suffering patients has been around since ancient ages as, Mesopotamia strictly forbade euthanasia following the sixth commandment “thou shall not kill”, India practiced it by drowning incurable patients in the Ganges

The above-mentioned types of Euthanasia can be further divided into two more major parts: Active and Passive Euthanasia. The hastening of the death of a person by active procedures such as deliberately overdosing on a medicine is known as Active Euthanasia. On the other hand, Passive Euthanasia is when death to a patient is brought by an omission. It is when the treatment necessary for the continuance of life is brought to an end. For example, ventilators or life support

Euthanasia is a word that comes from ancient Greece and it refers to “good death”. In the modern societies euthanasia is defined as taking away people’s lives who suffer from an incurable disease. They usually go through this process by painlessness ways to avoid the greatest pains that occurs from the disease. A huge number of countries in the World are against euthanasia and any specific type of it. One of the most important things being discussed nowadays is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. This essay will focus on comparing positive and negative aspects of euthanasia in order to answer to the question whether euthanasia should be legal or not.