The Justice Argument Regarding Extending The Human Lifespan

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.

With a respectable argument against the idea of pharmaceutical advances eventually leading to immortality, Lexchin uses multiple forms of rhetoric, mostly logos, to sway the readers. He sets our deep fantasies of someday being able to live forever against our rational minds and backs up his case with sound logic and viable examples that leave us no doubts about human limitation.

After considering the system of utilitarianism, it is important to take a close look at the roots and depth of euthanasia as it has infiltrated our society. This will include an in-depth look at the overall idea of euthanasia, a history of the laws that have defined euthanasia, a specific case of euthanasia, and how the decision-making system of utilitarianism can be applied to a specific ethical communicative issue within.

Keeping a person alive by excessive treatment might devastate the family and make the dying suffer tremendously in the end. “Advance medical technology that seems to one person a godsend, extending life, may seem to another a curse that only prolong dying. Dignity can be devalued amid technology focused solely on the biological organism.”

In J. Gay-Williams’ piece “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”, he begins by asserting that euthanasia is gaining popularity within our society, then defines euthanasia, and finally offers retributions as to why euthanasia is neither morally nor practically right. According to Gay-Williams, “euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person” (Gay-Williams 1979, 278). Based off aspects of his definition, Gay-Williams formats his three main arguments against active euthanasia which stem from nature, self-interest, and practical effects. Out of the three proposed arguments, the argument from nature stands out personally, as the least sound. Briefly stated, this argument is not sound because it fails to offer distinction

In this essay, I will be creating a discourse on anthropological activism and how it relates to the basic principles of anthropology, whilst referring to the case study Activist Anthropologists by Victoria Sanford. I will provide my anthropological views on this subject based on my research.

Whilst in some instances, justice has to some extent, been achieved, this is not always the case. Euthanasia is one of the most, radically contested issues of today. Activists have continually sought law reform on this topic over the last 30 years. Yet, with similar issues as to that of abortion, it raises strong ethical and moral questions. In this case, the beliefs of those opposed have seen a halt on any reform. Meaning that justice, for those in some of the most horrific of life positions, is not being served. Euthanasia is another matter involving 'choice' and 'sanctity of life', it also continues the argument of liberal versus democratic, utilitarian perspectives. An example of the tension between these two principles is seen in comments made by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, 'the demands of common good must be measured against claims of liberties: a request for voluntary euthanasia is a request to be killed by another… Aspects of common good affected by the legislation of euthanasia include equal protection under the law,… and factors affecting an individuals sense of security a times when they are feeling particularly

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

Nowell-Smith looks at moral right based and utilitarian theories. The right of not to be killed can be argued against by the right to want to end living. He provides an example of euthanasia societies where a lot of older people who still enjoy live just have a desire to have an opportunity to end their lives the way they want to. The fear of being helpless and slowly dying in the institutions drives these people to join these societies and ask for a law to be changed. Nowell-Smith also makes an argument against Law Reform Commission of Canada’s report Euthanasia, Suicide and Cessation of Treatment that suggests that euthanasia laws should not be changed. One of the arguments is that it may go out of control and could lead to serious abuses and mistakes. Nowell-Smith argues that it can be controlled stating the example of Dutch system where voluntary active euthanasia practices only in hospitals and where everything is considered before any action is done so there is no mistake.

I am going to answer these two questions in this essay. They are “Do you think that the right to life entails a right to die under certain circumstances?” and “Should the laws be changed to grant a universal right to voluntary euthanasia?”. In this essay, I am going to give reasons using ethical theories to justify these questions.

Firstly, there has been much controversy about the right to prolong somebody’s life. This is the goal of a life support machine after all. There are many religious organizations that believe that anything should be done to preserve a life. The Buddhist religion has great respect for life, and they believe that it is not morally correct to let a person die if it can be prevented. On the other hand, they believe that it is not necessary to do any excessive treatment to a human being that could cause suffering or is unlikely to help. Therefore, they feel that it is not correct to just abandon a life, but instead, to continue to give the person basic needs and care. The intent of ending a life is forbidden in the Buddhist religion. One should only stop when it does not seem possible to save that life. Buddhists usually try to accept death with dignity. Damien Keown, a professor of Buddhist ethics says, “The bottom line is that so long as there is no intention to take life, no moral problem arises”

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.

In our day and age as we know it, there have been astounding advancements in medicine. The average life expectancy has risen. People are being educated in issues that surround a healthy life style. As a society, we are trying to increase our life span and defeat death. While people are following strict

Today we are face with death in a different setting then our ancestors, instead of dying at a younger age and dying in our home with our families, people are now dying at a hospital or in a medical setting. We are living longer because of the advances in medicine, this is causing us to develop diseases that our ancestors never had to face. Our ancestors did not live long enough to develop some of the diseases we face today. As Jones (2011) provides, “we don’t just die of different diseases then our ancestors, we also die in different circumstances” (p. 302). The changes in circumstances have caused us to reevaluate what is believed to be ethical when faced with dying. There are many medical options a terminal ill or elderly patient that is dying can choose from, however there is great debate whether some of these options are ethical.

Medical knowledge is less than adequate in these societies, leading to much illness and a very high death rate. The infant mortality rate is overwhelmingly high, which is a reason for the high birth rates. Many infants do not make it through their first year of life before they get deathly ill - most of them do eventually die from their illness. The medical technology of modern society is so expensive to third world countries, making it extremely difficult for their society to stay healthy. Life expectancy is about 40-45 years in traditional societies.