✎✎✎ Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay

Wednesday, December 15, 2021 11:02:08 AM

Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay

Other problematic situations with euthanasia are that a person with a non-terminal disease may Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay choose euthanasia Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay a settled desire Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay die. Short research Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay pdf. If we consent to Elvis Persuasive Speech, and X would normally violate our rights, X should not violate our rights. This law went into effect in but was quickly repealed Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay by the National Parliament. Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay my best university Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay on brexit.

Why Legalizing #Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is a Bad Idea

In one definition, euthanasia is described as a quick death in which pain is almost absent. However, some countries allow euthanasia to be performed on individuals on their own consent or with the approval of a next of kin. Euthanasia has been a subject of arguments among religious authorities. It has also been a subject of controversy and study in the complex field of philosophy. Some of the philosophies revolve around the extent to which life may not be worth living, while other theories revolve around the duty of the parties involved in a case of euthanasia.

Deontology has been against euthanasia from many perspectives. Many ethicists and authors who have used deontology against euthanasia have relied on the concept of duty. Philosophical deontology revolves around principles of duty. One is obligated to perform duties even when odds are against success. There are various forms of philosophical deontology. One of the most popular approaches to deontology is the Kantian philosophy of duty. Other authors such as Brian Kane have indirectly used deontology to present an argument favoring preservation of life.

Thus, when deontology is applied to euthanasia, it revolves around the duty to preserve life. According to Kant, one must not lie to a potential murderer to alleviate an almost certain act of murder. Deontology provides one of the strongest arguments against euthanasia. However, in the quest to establish an argument against euthanasia, it is necessary to have a positive attitude towards living. From that point, it is possible to establish a solid argument against euthanasia using deontology. Brian Kane uses Hippocratic philosophy to argue against euthanasia. When one performs the contrary action of killing, then this is considered murder. There is an exception of those people who are killed for their transgressions against ethical principles of a society.

Thus, killing for any other reason, including mercy, is murder. On the contrary, the ability to extend life and heal diseases and other afflictions has been acquired by humanity through laborious research and enlightenment. Thus, it is our duty to preserve life rather than kill. Kane observes that killing does not change its nature even when technology and modern medicine are used to camouflage the negligence of duty behind euthanasia. He later argues that even Christian doctrines and other religious beliefs consider life it all its different forms, a sanctified gift from God.

In that case, euthanasia is considered a betrayal of the person under care. The decision to perform a mercy killing on a suffering individual is abandonment of a person with whom the medic performing the euthanasia has shown immeasurable solidarity earlier by providing care and support. On the other hand, Kantian deontology has its own special argument against euthanasia. All aspects of Kantian philosophy revolve around duty, goodwill and categorical imperative, the philosophy of pure reason.

One should observe duties at all time despite the odds. In one illustration, Kant argues that it is immoral to lie to a murderer in order to alleviate occurrence of the murder. He argues that lying to anyone denies one the freedom to make a rational deduction. In the case of euthanasia, Kantian philosophy can be applied to imply that we must preserve life at all costs. This has led to development of modern medicine, which is a universal practice. For this reason, it is a universal duty for everybody to work towards extending life in its various forms regardless of the situation. Doing so would go against the duty to preserve life. These people have been charged with the duty to preserve life through application of technology and modern medicine.

This universally accepted practice is applied in all societies in the world. A medic should thus, not perform euthanasia under any circumstances. In addition, the medic must go to the furthest extent in his or her quest to observe the duty to preserve life. Kantian philosophy can also be applied from another perspective to the same effect. Kantian deontology directly addresses the issue of duty to oneself. The same kind of reasoning is applied to suicide.

In fact, suicide is not acceptable in many societies. Similarly, it is universally unacceptable to take any life since it goes against ones duty as it is universally defined. If it were universally acceptable that people can take their own lives, then there would be a significant possibility that the human race would not exist. Kant lays a strong foundation for deontology, particularly regarding professional conduct in all disciplines. According to Kant, deontology opposes any action that goes against universally accepted norms. Deontology explicitly outlines the universal purpose of medicine, technology and medical personnel, which is to preserve life. For this reason, it is immoral for anyone to assist any individual to die for whatever reason.

Another author, Robert Young, considers euthanasia as a rational act by qualified personnel to end suffering of a patient. He says that it is prudent for a qualified medic to induce death or allow a patient to die to alleviate pain and suffering. For such an action to be morally acceptable, the euthanasia should not have a beneficial effect to any other person other than the patient.

Thus, euthanasia is performed for the sake of the suffering individual. He maintains that the decision to perform euthanasia should be a result of an assessment by a qualified person. Young also excludes cases of people who are such an invalid state that they are not in a position to decide whether to have euthanasia performed or not For a case of euthanasia to be of moral value, the patient must request for the procedure, and the medic involved must be in a position to assess the condition of the patient and ascertain that the patient indeed suffering.

Young further cites David Hume, who sought to append moral justification to suicide. He says that personal autonomy is paramount and should be respected. Thus, euthanasia should be morally acceptable when it is done within certain defined moral guidelines that involve the authority of the subject to euthanasia. David Hume dismissed religious authorities as unfair to those people who committed suicide by denying them the freedom to choose not to live when life becomes unbearable. Thus, under certain circumstances, euthanasia is acceptable according to Young. It is impossible for any medic, however competent, to accurately determine the validity and extent of suffering of any individual. For this reason, I disagree with his proposition that some experts are able to determine when life becomes unbearable.

Quill, states that U. Laws protect the doctors from possible accusations. This supports the claim that assisted suicide is wrong. If no one is benefiting from it, then why should it be considered a medical. Even though the concept of great. Because I think that it is during a terminal and incurable illness or something that you know is going to change your life,that people actually sit down and think about the way they have lived their life, think about the wrongs that they have done, and think of how they are going to prepare themselves, their family, and loved ones for their death.

Not all people make use of this opportunity, but the ones that do usually try to build up or maybe even rebuild their relationships with their loved ones, and this opportunity will somehow give them a greater purpose in life. Therefore we should recognize the importance of the patient. Therefore euthanasia should not be legal anywhere in the. Most cases of suicide in society deal with persons of mental illness who make irrational decisions based on illogical thoughts to end their lives.

Physician aided death is a multilayer issue in which the layers must be peeled away to see the reasons for the decision, the process it involves, and the reasons why this should be allowed in our society. As advances in the technology of medicine progress medical personnel are able to treat and prolong the lives of many persons with terminal illnesses. Doctor-assisted suicide, or euthanasia, can cause deaths under circumstances where the person is not mentally able to make that decision for themselves. Doctor-assisted suicide should be illegal because of how many unnecessary and unwanted deaths it has caused.

Doctor-assisted suicide, or euthanasia, gives doctors too much power to kill, it also persuades powerless people to think about ending their life, and it makes patients who don 't actually want to die request it in belief that they are burdensome to the people around them. Doctors receive too much power from patients and medical facilities to assist suicide to patients with illnesses or patients who think they need to end their life in general. According to Cristian Nordqvist, euthanasia is known as "the means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering" Nordqvist, Christian.

Euthanasia is a debatable topic that has recently gained a lot of attention. It is also referred to as physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia was first created and used for terminally ill patients or patients who live with very painful diseases. It is an option that some terminally-ill patients have considered and in my opinion, an option that every terminally-ill patient should have available to them. Euthanasia gives a terminally ill individual the opportunity to end the misery they feel they are in. As human beings, we are constantly expected to make decisions for ourselves. If an individual wants to die, it should be their decision and …show more content… One of the main arguments is that euthanasia could be an ethical issue and can be seen as assisted murder.

Physicians are not forced to provide the euthanasia doses; the physicians who do, have agreed to do so. As well as the patient is asking to die, they are not being killed against their will. Another argument is that medical resources and money will be spent for a patient to kill themselves, when they can just commit suicide on their own free will. More medical resources would be spent on keeping that patient alive, than it would euthanize them. It is true that the patient can commit suicide on their own free will, but there can be complications with that.

The patient could possibly be too weak to commit suicide, as well as if they committed suicide, another individual would find their body. Finding a dead body can be very detrimental to another human being and can cause them further complications including hurting their mental and emotional health. This could be very unhealthy for the person who finds the body of the suicide. Show More.

It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay also called Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay killing. Similarly, Application of Johannes Gutenbergs Invention Of The 13th Century Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay automatically makes Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay immoral. A Duty to Live?. Thesis statement for hot topic international assignment services.

Web hosting by Somee.com