The Counter Arguments Against Active 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

Many people would argue that it’s okay to end your life or someone else’s life, if they do not have the possibility of getting better and are terminally ill. Another reason is that maybe they have a mental illness or are a harm to themselves and others. On the other hand, some people believe that life has value and great worth and that being euthanized takes away that value in having life. There is much argument and debate over whether or not Euthanasia is ever justified. At the end of the day, it’s based on what a person believes is right. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to. However, Euthanasia can never be justified because it makes people believe that life is not worth living if you are terminally ill, deformed, in a coma, have a disability, feel that you are a burden to someone, in unbearable pain or have the right to commit suicide. No matter how bad life gets, people should know that life is always worth living. When someone consents to being euthanized or having someone else be euthanized, they may miss out on memories and life’s joys. There is a lot of pain in life that people have to deal with, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to decide that they or anyone else should die. This also does not give anyone the right to inject drugs into someone in order to kill them peacefully. It doesn’t matter if you are just trying to help

The idea of non-voluntary active euthanasia is not such a disaster, as euthanasia itself. The problem that comes into consideration is when and why it should be used. When euthanasia is non-voluntary and active, such as on a patient with dementia, the ethical decision comes into play if there are episodes of clarity and the patient has or has not mentioned what they want to do at the end of life situations. Principles of deontology suggest duty and obligation. A medical professional in such situations have an obligation to fulfill the patient 's wishes. The nature of their obligation does not sway based on what they personally think. Patients with dementia have some moments of clarity, but because their brains are still deteriorating, non-

In recent years, the controversial topic of assisted suicide has gained a spot on the debate table in multiple countries. Most people automatically shun the idea of assisted suicide purely because of the wording. Whenever someone hears “suicide,” bad assumptions are going to be made--which is acceptable. The unacceptable part of the debate is the fact that people take sides before being properly informed about the topic. Assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, is provided when a person wants to end their suffering in what they consider a dignified option. While this decision is only legal within a few states of our country, there are many people fighting to have it revoked worldwide. One person who is strongly against the idea is Rosie DiManno, a columnist for the Toronto Star, who believes no one should be able to choose their fate. She makes this evident when she refers to the recent death of her uncle by stating that “he willed himself to die in the end. . .and this is the only form of self-extinction I can morally abide” (DiManno). Although she gives compelling reasons for her side of the argument, she over does it by incorporating too much pathos in multiple occasions.

In physician assisted suicide, the option to end a patient’s life is provided to a patient with knowledge of the patient's intention. Unlike euthanasia, in physician assisted suicide, someone makes death available, but does not directly administer the death (Broeckaert 1). Euthanasia is putting someone to death who is suffering from a pain, illness or injury. Euthanasia means that someone other than the patient commits an action with the intent to end the patient's life, for example injecting a patient with a lethal dose of medication. Patients may consent to Euthanasia which is voluntary Euthanasia, refuse Euthanasia which is involuntary Euthanasia, or be unable to consent to Euthanasia which is non voluntary Euthanasia (Walsh 1). Although

In the “Intentional Termination of Life” Bonnie Steinbock argues that the AMA does not explicitly allows passive euthanasia, but rather allows the cessation of life-prolonging treatment. To Steinbock, passive euthanasia and cessation of treatment are separate entities. For example, a cancer patient who wishes to stop chemotherapy because it causes excruciating pain is not requesting an end to treatment because he/she wishes to die, but rather because he/she wishes to no longer be in pain. Furthermore, there is an argument that active euthanasia (especially in children) often takes place in an effort to alleviate other’s suffering rather than to alleviate the suffering of the patient in question. Steinbock argues that while waiting for the patient to die may be hard on family, friends and physicians - it is not necessarily hard on the patient, themselves. Therefore, if a patient’s last days may still be filled with love and care, he/she must be afforded this time. It is immoral to utilize active euthanasia just to alleviate emotional strain on family, friends and

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.

The author states that “it is never justified to intentionally bring an end to human life in order to relieve one of a burdensome existence” (Doug). A human life should be sacred. To take away someone’s life breaks that sacred bond that a human has with another. Life should not be consider something that a person can take away. Euthanasia disregards the value of a human life, and it is a treatment that can act a double-edge sword.

What is life? Life according to Merriam Webster’s learner’s dictionary, is the experience of being alive. If you are already in pain suicide will only cause more pain not only to you but to the people you love the most. Who knows you might not be in the right state of mind, you might get better, it could be murder, and it is definitely not humane. Assisted suicide is not right and it breaks the theory of medicine.

Should a person who is terminally ill, who feels that their life is not worth living due to unbearable pain, be given assistance in dying? Although not everyone will agree, I strongly agree that euthanasia should be legal in every state in the United States. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. Many people believe that Euthanasia should not be legalized in any state but the fact is that some people prefer to pull the plug rather than to go through misery. Several people in the U.S get diagnosed with diseases such as cancer, strokes, HIV, AIDS and etc.

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.

The traditional Christian view: Most theologians and ethicists who hold a traditional or historic Christian viewpoint accept the active-versus-passive distinction logically and morally. However, they would view active euthanasia as morally offensive and unacceptable. Such action violates the scriptural principle that prohibits suicide and homicide, the intentional taking of 'innocent' human life. Many Christians ethicists believe that given the state of human sinfulness, original sin, total depravity, active euthanasia weakens respect for human life and sets a dangerous precedent.

First of all, it is inevitable that the argument “euthanasia being morally permissible” is relevant to the philosophical theory “Utilitarianism” which generally fixates on increasing happiness and decreasing misery to an

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

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.