Euthanasia should remain illegal Euthanasia is a word with such great meaning but is often misunderstood by individuals. Some define this term as “the right to die” whereas others define it as “the right to kill Euthanasia is the act of encouraging a painless death or looking for the help for a good death. The act of euthanasia often occurs because long-term patients would rather drink poison or get shot by somebody than suffering their whole life fighting against a major disease. The term euthanasia is also known as mercy killing since it’s a way of ending one’s life who is not willing to live anymore. [1] This happens usually for compassionate reasons such as to reduce the pain of the ill ones.
If these are indeed the rights which the state deems valuable for its citizens, then a paternalistic cause must act in support of a majority of these rights. Obviously, allowing PAS and euthanasia eliminate a patient's right to life by killing them. However, the banning of PAS and euthanasia may lead to the elimination of a patient's right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not simply the state of being happy, it also is the state of not being unhappy. Happiness can be seen as a continuous scale between the state of total misery and total joy, with non-existence sitting exactly in the middle.
Explain how moral relativism might be applied to voluntary euthanasia (25 marks) Euthanasia is a worldwide ethical issue. Meaning ‘good death’, euthanasia is currently illegal in the UK and so people have to either break the law and face serious consequences or indeed go to a place in Switzerland called Dignitas. In Zurich, it is legal to end a person’s life at a special hospital in which a doctor subscribes a pill that will kill the patient. This is voluntary euthanasia because it involves provision of means and is an opportunity whereby a patient can terminate their own life. There are two main types of moral groups.
Is it best to take a relativist approach to euthanasia? Many would argue about what approach should be taken against euthanasia whether its absolutist or relativist and both approaches have valid arguments to support their approach to euthanasia. It is best to take a relativist approach to euthanasia as that approach will look at the circumstances the person is and will take into account what the person who wants to die is feeling and they should have a right to choose whether they want their own life to continue or not and it should not be contested if they choose that they want to die if their life is in unliveable conditions e.g. if someone’s whole body is paralyzed and cannot function without machines. However, by taking a relativist approach to euthanasia, you would be potentially killing someone and ending their future life just because at that moment they chose not to live.
Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? Dion O. Hales SOC120 Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility Prof. Theodore Framan June 22, 2012 Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? While killing yourself is harder than having someone do it for you is that killing yourself requires firmer resolve, Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? Because a patient's last will and last testament should be honored, a competent patient's request to terminate life-sustaining treatment, and it is our moral right to prevent a person from suffering if they suffer from a disease we cannot cure. First, Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
One ethical issue that Kant can be applied to is euthanasia. This means “good death” and in general is the act of asking someone to help you to die. The case study I will discuss is voluntary euthanasia is where you actively take something to kill you. This is widely debated as it is illegal in most countries. Kant uses the categorical imperatives to determine whether or not this is right, to choose to die.
If fetuses are considered to persons with the same moral status as typical adult humans, opponents of abortion would tend to make the argument that “Every person has a right to life. A fetus is a person, therefore it has a right to life.” With this taken into account, opponents of abortion also believe that since the fetus is a person with the right to life, its right to life outweighs the mother’s right to decide what happens in her body. Therefore the fetus should the be killed and an abortion should not be preformed as it is often considered morally impermissible to kill another person with the same moral status as typical adult humans. However, we should consider a case in which the mother will die if an abortion is not preformed. Despite the fact that both she and the fetus has the equal right to life, opponents of abortion would still consider it wrong to preform an abortion with reasons ranging from killing an innocent person is always wrong and is murder to one must always prefer letting a person die to killing a person.
Outline and comment upon arguments for and against legalising euthanasia. Euthanasia, a term that once meant ‘good death’ in the times of the Ancient Greeks, is now seen as a taboo subject which many struggle to speak about. Euthanasia was once a simple term for a ‘good death’ but now refers to a death that is deliberately brought about for humane reasons (Rachels, 1993). With advancements in medical and moral fields, euthanasia is now about so much more. It can be broken down into multiple categories which help to give clarity to what exact action is being conducted.
The author is very explicit about his or her stand on Euthanasia as the thesis statement of the author has been mentioned in the first paragraph and the last paragraph. It is stated in the text that the practice of mercy killing due to their illness or a disability is an unnatural thing to do and should not be practiced as no one has the authority or the right to decide who to kill. The author also highlights its use in Germany during the World War two in which the government would decide who would be killed due to their inabilities. The Nazis have their own idea of what a perfect human race is and this is one of their methods for their goal. The problem that was discussed was its hypothetical conclusion that history might repeat itself.
This example also brings out a point about this principle that is the bad side effect cannot be the means for reaching the morally good intention. For instance, if the only way to help the patient from suffering is death, it is not justified if the doctor underdone euthanasia even if his intention was for the good of the patient(The doctrine