A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
They believe that “life is the most basic gift of loving God-a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion”. Even if it is legalized in many places around the world today, there are many that are still strongly against it. Dr. Leo Alexander says that “the problem with euthanasia is the acceptance of an attitude that life is worthless, can be thrown away. That attitude is in its early stages right now, but as it progresses, so will our value of life drop. Anyone, the socially unproductive, the socially unwanted, will be considered useless; will kill off our own species, our morals.
However, creationism says that the world and living things was created by God. Creationism refuses the idea of evolution and it causes some arguments about whether evolution should be taught in schools or not. Evolution should be taught in schools so that students can gain different points of view about human nature. Creationists believe that creationism explains the existence of God. They do not believe that species change into totally different and separate animals through evolution, as sacred books mention about existence of God and they contains strict rules.
They also believe that genetic modification is almost like playing Gods role, which is seen as disrespectful to God. They also believe that there are some faults with the world and people because the world can’t be perfect as only heaven is perfect, so trying to play God role. They also believe that embryo research is just like abortion and because they don’t believe in abortion they will not allow genetic research! Some Muslims also believe that scientists that try to make life from the stem-cells is playing God which is something that is serious and can’t be forgiven for a Muslim to do it
Ethics on use of animals for research The early Greek philosophers valued reason above all else, and ascribed little moral value to animals and even to other humans that did not possess this attribute. While this viewpoint might be viewed as extreme, from a biological perspective this might be seen as competition. Using the survival advantage given to us by our capacity for reason is no less moral or ethical than another animal using its adaptations to survive. However, it should be obvious that by allowing unrestricted human exploitation of animals, there is great potential for extirpation of species. Thus, we utilize animals for food and clothing; we keep them as pets or as livestock; we plant our crops, harvest wild plant products, and build our cities and highways where animals might otherwise have lived, but we do so with restrictions on our
Animals welfare, not animal right Animals are used in many different scientific tests. It has remained to be a controversy in the past century. “Cruel” and “inhumane” are the two most common words to be used in describing animal testing. Animal activists question the necessity of it, claiming it to be an abuse to animal. They believe that animals should be granted the right against suffering at the hands of humans.
Some companies have a strong belief that animal testing is essential in order to make sure that consumers are protected during the use of their products. For the fact that we allow this to happen in our world is pathetic, and it all comes down to pure selfishness’, an ugly trait in which human’s possess. How can it be rational to take the life out of something because it can’t show or tell someone if they’re in agony? Over the years there have been numerous amounts of companies that have stood strong on not participating in animal cruelty; realistically it should be the only way. Humans are at fault here; before it’s too late we must realize that each living creature has a choice and should never be taken away by pure
This is wrong, because as humans we must respect hashem and not disobey his commandments. Also, all life is valuable because G-d created every creature on this planet as part of his divine plan. Therefore, he must decide when animals lives should end, because as humans we must not interfere in plan. Judaism teaches about the sanctity of life and that life is holy, therefore the preservation of life is important therefore ending an animals life would be wrong. This is showing that Jewish people should be vegetarians.
Why continue to test animals that may give inaccurate results on products that can still be sold to the human race? Now there are groups who say that there is no alternative to animal testing, and that animals have saved many human lives, but if the
Individual have diverse feelings for animals. Sorrowfully animal lovers cannot fight for their side, yet they still combat to save animal lives. Animals used as their companions while others view that animals are for scientific survey course only. Several scientists only think how to making their test flourish without knowing that animal they use are being abused and maltreated. Not all tests are relevant to human health.