Tony Nicklinson's Argument Against Euthanasia

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

Furthermore, euthanasia is a disgrace to humanity. An individual person or group shouldn’t decide how, when, and if another person should die. The act of ending someone’s life just because another decided that the individual’s life gives no worth to the person or to society is unjust. That is simply the person’s opinion, and their opinion shouldn’t end a precious human life. Usually, people with disabilities who request euthanasia, do so because of how others treat them, not because of their actual disability. If we were to respect those with disabilities, that would remove hardships, not death. Another reason why euthanasia is wrong is that a person who can’t think straight or is a human vegetable, a person who does not have mental or physical abilities (O’Steen). She/he can be killed by a guardian’s request according to law, even if the patient never showed a desire to die. The Declaration of Independence states our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and euthanasia goes against that. If the right to live is reduced, all over rights are worthless (“Euthanasia Statement”).

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.

Some people say that euthanasia will end suffering and pain. But what proof do they have or what right do they have to make that claim" (143). Many authors have asked what proof people have to back up their claims but many of them never have any proof at all and are just relying mostly on their own personal beliefs or feelings. They don’t have any factual evidence that euthanasia will or will not end suffering. Some people believe that euthanasia would only end the burden on those who are around the sick. The reason that they think this is that they believe that the people only end a life to end the burden of worrying and the burden of paying high bills. This is a clear-cut example of just some of the debatable issues behind the topic of euthanasia. Many people believe that others might use euthanasia to send old parents or other

Euthanasia, in today’s world, is a word with opposing meanings. Originally, it meant “a good death” (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Since the legalization of euthanasia around the world in the early 1990’s, the meaning has changed. Several pro-euthanasia sites would call it a humane and peaceful way to end the dying process, by either stopping the course of treatment or the use of lethal doses of medications (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Con-euthanasia activists are most concerned about the slippery slope idea, being euthanasia is only a half-way house to legalizing murder (Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org, 2016). When discussing a topic so sensitive as death, an invisible line appears between a right way and a wrong way to die. By the end of this paper, the hope is to have an educated discussion regarding some social and political inquiries surrounding euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can often get confused with one another and although both are 2 different practices, they share the same end goal; a peaceful death. Today, only a few countries in the entire world have legalized the practice of euthanasia, showing just how controversial the topic has become in recent years. Should someone be able to die just because they feel like it or should valid reasons be required? And who gets to decide whether an assisted suicide is allowed or not? The answers to questions like these are never simple but to guarantee the freedoms of liberty that were given to many in the form of government constitutions, all these questions and more must be answered. Although life on Earth is a gift that was

Opponents also argue that there may be a “slippery slope” from euthanasia to murder. Active euthanasia can become a problem when it comes to insurance companies, ultimately providing an incentive to target the poor and disabled in order to save money. Many opponents contend that every life is a gift from God and should be cherished and should never be deliberately destroyed.

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of putting an end to a patient’s life for the purpose of ending the patients suffering. But can it ever be right to kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering? To kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering, is considered homicide. Over the past years euthanasia has been defeated and become illegal in every country besides Netherland and Belgium. I am afraid that if euthanasia could have been legalised in those two countries, it’s a matter of time; the whole world would approval and soon follows the Dutch’s example of ‘good and easy death.’ Once legalised, euthanasia will become a means of health care containment, will become involuntary and would not only apply for the terminally ill,

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 is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are

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

The legalization of euthanasia has always been a highly debatable topic since it causes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical controversy where some people believe it reduces our respect for the value of human life and it will be a gateway for other immoral actions to be normalized even though it is a basic human right that patients all over the world are denied to this day.

Some believe that euthanasia should be ethically viewed similarly to suicide because of the idea of choosing to end one’s own life, which is considered unethical. However, some oppose this belief, and believe

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.