Taking Lives Peter Singer Analysis

take doctors’ advice seriously and can change their lives entirely. This is not the way to go because even with the choice of euthanasia, there is still the opinions of others which persuade and affect you which sometimes you cannot control.

If a child is born with a horrible disease and the only way to survive is to have an operation, which will in a sense allow the child to live, but under poor conditions, the parents have a difficult decision to make. It might be very easy to think about themselves and how raising this child would perhaps be a burden to them or a burden to society. Once again in order for euthanasia to be morally permissible they have to make to decision based on what is good for the child. This is where another crucial point comes into play. Who is to say that even though this child will grow up with severe abnormalities and discomfort that they won't find happiness? "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p.795) As you can see, the decision of ending a person's life is a very delicate and hard decision. It is however, a decision we are only allowed to make if it is passive euthanasia being considered. As of right now, active euthanasia is not permissible. We now need to discuss what would happen if active euthanasia were permissible.

Ethicist Peter singer is an influential member of pro euthanasia advocates. Singer justifies his pro euthanasia credentials based on two grounds the first being voluntary, which means the patient, has the capacity to choose between life and death and can make a rational decision to die. The second ground is non-voluntary, where the patient is incapable of understanding the choice between continued existence and non-existence and therefore cannot consent to death. (Singer, 1993) Singer maintains the notion that a person who wishes to die has made an informed decision based on careful exercising of one’s reason and then consents to death in the form of voluntary

Euthanasia, is the act of killing a person painlessly for reasons of mercy. It is known worldwide by many people, in many countries. It is illegal in the United States, but Physician Assisted Suicide is legal in 6 states. Physician Assisted Suicide is the voluntary ending of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with direct or indirect assistance of a physician. The debate on if Euthanasia should be legal has been going on for hundreds of years, really becoming prominent in the 1920’s then dying down. But today this topic is as strong as it was almost a hundred years ago. In the book Taking Sides by Stephen Satris, however has two opposing views by two different people. Both are philosophers, and these are their sides.

With this paper I plan to address the topic of euthanasia. I will cover the philosophy behind why it is not a regular practice, and differentiate between multiple forms. After introducing the issue, itself I will speak briefly on the legality of the issue. This should result in the principles of myself, Peter Singer, Don Marquis, and Michael Tooley all being brought together in this discussion. Ultimately, I will lead this discussion into the direction of why I have found euthanasia to be a morally permissible action.

After reading the article, “ Should Terminally Ill Children Have the Right to Ask For Their Own Death?”, children should not have the right to choose their death. One reason is that a child 's brain isn’t much like an adults, their brains aren’t as developed. Therefore, they can’t comprehend death. The article argues, “ Minors may not have the mental capacity or vocabulary to request death”(Trianni). For example, a nurse says , “ I never had a child asking to end his life,” children indeed say , “ It’s really hard’ or “I’m fed up”(Trianni). Meaning, children aren’t tired of living their simply tired of their situation. The article also points out children may be the ones requesting death but ultimately they shouldn 't and won’t be the ones making the decisions. Children shouldn’t be the ones to decide their own death date.

The interpretation of euthanasia, whether it is voluntary or involuntary, varies with each individual. The concept of euthanasia continues to be a debated and argued and it remains to be a complex ethical situation for all involved. This paper summarizes one individual’s philosophy and values with regard to this ethical issue.

In order to deal with the question of euthanasia properly, it is first necessary to define it. Generally, euthanasia requires the physician to perform a medical procedure that causes death directly. Euthanasia should clearly be defined as “a deliberate act or omission that causes death, undertaken by one person with the primary intention of ending the life of another person, in order to relieve

I’m sure just by the introduction of our topic that you already have a preconceived idea of this contentious topic. We are here to provide you with the facts, that people should not be left to suffer for extended periods of time. To be clear, we are speaking of legalising euthanasia in terms of medically diagnosed patients who are classified as terminally ill and are still competent enough to make this decision and fulfill the requirements according to the governing body.

An example is infants with oxygen deprivation, brain or organ damage (Blendon 2659). The third protocol handled infants with hopeless prognosis who according to their doctors and physicians were unbearably suffering. Many people argued that the infants would not give an informed consent therefore there is a need to adopt other alternative methods that do not involve euthanasia. Children, unlike adults, lack experience and do not have grounds on which they would support their euthanizing. Some scholars even state that physician assisted suicide is an acceptable alternative for ill adults but not for infants or children. Infants might not be able to choose between unbearable pain and death. However, their parents act as custodians of their decision making, and thus make such decisions for

Utilitarianism is defined as choosing the fact that will create the largest amount of happiness for the largest amount of people. It is a straightforward approach that aims to reduce the amount of suffering and pain from the greatest amount of people. To relate to the moral theory of euthanasia, we will be looking at it from a utilitarian perspective. While in many way utilitarianism leans toward euthanasia being a moral act, it can be questioned whether or not it causes more pain that happiness. Dealing with a difficult issue such as euthanasia and assisted suicide, utilitarianism can play a major role. In an article done by Singer, he speaks of several different factors to consider when making the decision about voluntary euthanasia. One of the most important points that was brought up by

Perhaps one of the most debated topics in the medical and political professions is euthanasia. One of the most common practices of euthanasia today is active neonatal euthanasia, which involves the use of opioids or sedatives to end the life of a mentally or physically disabled fetus (Eijnden & Martinovici, 2013, p. 75). Another more recognized form of euthanasia involves “reducing the populations of the poor, the elderly, and the disabled [which people think] is modern, scientific, moral, and progressive” (Ummel, 2016, p. 396). According to the utilitarian ethical system, euthanasia is acceptable and even moral, as it creates happiness for the majority of people.

Child euthanasia has been put into affect to end poor quality of life. This includes unbearable pain, suffering, having an incurable disease, and most importantly, the patient must be terminal. Being terminal as a child covers diseases such as cancer, leukemia, and AIDS. Being born with any of these diseases gives the patient a 0% chance survival rate because chemotherapy and the AIDS drugs which would lower the patients red blood cell count so the patient is able to continue to live a happy normal life would poison a child. A child’s body has not developed enough and most of the bodies systems have not fully developed yet, the body is not strong enough to filter the toxins given in these medical solutions.

Another major part of this that has yet to be touched is the subject of passive euthanasia. The main concern with this is the debate as to how important is this person’s life? Are they worth the expensive hospital bill they’re being charged? If they have zero chance of survival or of return, is it worth keeping them alive? Who gets to decide that? The doctor or the family of the patient? Should family members be allowed to speak on behalf of their emotions and what if they don’t have family? Even then it can come back to whether the patient even wanted to be put on life supporting services, or if they accept blood transfusions, is it moral to just let them die? Either way, all of these aspects should be taken into consideration when taking a standpoint with this. Nevertheless, perhaps an attempt at setting the issue in a philosophical framework and examining the ethical value of euthanasia using the moral criteria of Specific Deontology and Mill’s Utilitarianism and how they would deal with topic can help.

On March 3rd 2014, the law was changed in Belgium to abolish all age restrictions on euthanasia. This amendment allows euthanasia for terminally ill children who are exposed to “constant and unbearable suffering” (1). The act was passed in the Belgian Parliament with 86 votes in favour, and 44 against (with 12 abstentions). This amends Belgium’s previous law, “The Belgian Act on Euthanasia”, which was passed in 2002 (2), whereby euthanasia was only available to individuals over the age of eighteen or emancipated minors. There are several arguments in favour of this amendment including the belief that the rights of autonomy and justice must extend to children. Furthermore, prolonging life where the child has a loss of dignity and a reduced quality of life is seen by some as inhumane. In contrast, opponents of the amendment believe that the child’s right to life and doctor’s obligation to save life are both severely undermined. Opponents are concerned that a child does not possess the capacity to make the decision to end their own life. There is also the worry that granting paediatric euthanasia may lead to a ‘slippery slope’ whereby children could be euthanized without making a fully voluntary request. Despite the fact that public opinion was broadly in favour of the amendment (3), the question must be asked, was the amendment of this law in favour of murder or mercy?