The Wrongful of Euthanasia: J. Gay Williams

In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.

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

It has been argued that for people on life support systems and people with long standing diseases causing much pain and distress, euthanasia is a better choice. It helps in relieving them from pain and misery. In cases like terminal cancers when the patient is in much pain and when people associated with them also are put through a lot of pain and misery, it is much more practical and humane to grant the person his/her wish to end his/her own life in a relatively painless and merciful way.

In the article, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, J. Gay-Williams asserts that euthanasia is both morally impermissible and imprudent. This paper will focus on active-voluntary euthanasia as morally permissible by objecting to some of the arguments made by the author, who defines euthanasia as “intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person. Whether the life is one’s own or that of another…” (Vaughn 278). While Gay-Williams presents four arguments against euthanasia, the second argument, “of self-interest,” argues that euthanasia is imprudent, has short-comings and is thus flawed. In this paper, I will explain Gay-Williams’ argument of Self-Interest, following with concerns to how these arguments do not fully encompass the idea

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

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

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, 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?

From an ethical framework stand point, utilitarian’s would argue for non-voluntary euthanasia. The Utilitarian ultimately rates whether an action is good or bad based on the outcome. Thus, the end outcome might justify the means for doing an action (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008). For example, as discussed previously above, the cost of end of life treatment is often times extremely expensive, not only for the family but also for the economy. Still, when focusing on not only dollar amounts, but also totaling the numbers in the population afflicted with dementia, “around 1% of the population receives support for dementia” (Sharp, 2012), so therefore the number of loved ones affected would be much higher, leading a utilitarian to choose death of the cognitively impaired individual rather than becoming such a burden. By sacrificing one cognitively impaired individual, there will result in greater overall good in the rest of the population in terms of financial and resources.

There are several arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of euthanasia. The most persuasive argument is mercy. People who argue mercy state that it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill patient who wishes their life to be mercifully ended. They also argue that the suffering of terminal patients is not just physical pain, which is bad enough, but it also involves helplessness, stress, exhaustion, terror and loss. Another argument is respect for the person’s autonomy. People who are pro euthanasia feel that a person’s autonomy should be respected to the extent that no one else is harmed. So, since a terminally ill patient undergoing euthanasia harms no one else, that person’s autonomy and decision should be respected. It is also argued that the golden rule supports active euthanasia insofar as we would want others to put us out of our misery if we were in such a situation. A more formal version of this argument is based on Kant's categorical imperative ("act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"). (Horan 1980) The

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

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises

The article that I will use to develop my case is by J. Gay-, “the wrongness of Euthanasia.” that argues against the practice.

First of all, what is euthanasia? It is something that not many people think about until they or a friend or family member is put in a position where they might actually have to consider it. Euthanasia, in the dictionary, simply is: the action of ending someone’s life in a painless way. It seems pretty simple but in reality it is a lot more complicated, not only for the people involved but for the society in general as well.

Pro-life groups contend that if we allow any type of euthanasia, sooner or later, we would begin killing off not only the terminally ill, but also the handicapped, the poor, the elderly and anyone else who becomes troublesome. The view that we should not make a decision because it could lead to other less prudent decisions later is not a reasonable foundation for setting policies, unless later decisions are definite, and are absolutely wrong. I would hope that the virtue of society would lead us to know where to draw the line between going far enough and going too far. At the present time, it is not clear if where the line is drawn now is where it should be drawn. 5. Euthanasia is killing. Most people believe that there are circumstances when killing is allowed, such as self-defense. The only question is whether or not the killing is justified under the circumstances. In the case of self-defense, killing is justified. The same is true of euthanasia. 6. People who request euthanasia may be requesting it because they are depressed and they may change their minds. I believe that psychological evaluation will detect the mental condition of a patient, and depression, if it exists, can be treated. Patients can be given