Rachel and J. Gay-WIlliams have opposing ethical positions regarding physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Rachel backs his ethical approval of euthanasia with two strong arguments. His first argument is the “Utilitarian version of the argument” (Rachels, RIght Thing To Do, 350). This basic claim is that “any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the world or to decrease the amount of misery” (Rachels, RTD, 350). Since those who would be euthanized would become relieved of their unpreventable and agonizing pain (i.e. misery) euthanasia would be morally right. His second argument is that as long as it is in everyone’s best interest, euthanizing a person is a morally acceptable act (Rachels, RTD, 352).
…show more content…
Gay-Williams supports his ethical disapproval of euthanasia with three equally strong arguments. His first argument is the argument from nature. He explains that our bodies are made to survive thus euthanasia would be going against our very own human character making us “less than human” (Rachels, RTD, 355). His second defense is the argument from self-interest. New effective medical treatments, mistaken diagnoses, and miracle recoveries would never be given the chance to occur (Rachels, RTD, 356). Others may also choose euthanasia too soon, weakening the body’s chance to fight an illness. A person may also choose euthanasia for selfless reasons (e.g. they see their spouse suffering from hospital visits or going into debt). J. Gay Williams third argument, the argument from practical effects, is what I find most convincing. He speaks about euthanasia going against doctors and nurses very commitment which may therefore lead to an “overall decline in medical healthcare” (Rachels, RTD, 357). It is also may cause a ripple effect in regards to killing (Rachels, RTD,
The concept and ideology behind Physician-Assisted Suicide within the contemporary generation has become an exceptionally sensitive and controversial issue as multiple factors conglomerate to define if Physician-Assisted Suicide is justifiable within the grounds of ethical understanding and moral principles. The idea concerning PAS is based on the grounds of rational and irrational thinking as in if death is a rational choice above all other alternatives (Wittwer 420).
Running Header: Ethical Reasonings Ethical Reasonings for the Legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide The moral issue of whether or not Physician Assisted Suicide(PAS) should be allowed has been widely vocalized and debated throughout the world. Physician Assisted Suicide is an important issue because it concerns the fundamental morals of one 's life. There are a variety of opinions readily discussed about this issue. Most standpoints on this topic have to do with freedom.
Euthanasia- Gay Williams Gay-Williams presents an opposing argument against euthanasia. This reading made me really think about my stance on euthanasia. I personally have mixed feelings on this topic. Gay-Williams states that euthanasia is “inherently wrong” and is starting to become more accepted. One comment I have is that as science is advancing and new remedies are created, this thinking might be changing for some people.
Physician assisted suicide is by far one of the most controversial topics that has arose in the last decade. As such, there are many moral and ethical arguments both for and against the act of physician assisted suicide. Because of this, it is important to explore in detail the arguments made both in favor and against physician assisted suicide so that one can better grasp what exactly this sort of act entails. In his book “Understanding Assisted Suicide: Nine Issues to Consider”, Seattle University School of Law professor John B. Mitchell highlights many key points of why physician assisted suicide should be legalized.
Rachels looks at the utilitarian argument which states that if an action increases happiness or decreases unhappiness it is morally acceptable, therefore killing a suffering patients, who requests to die, decreases their unhappiness and can be morally acceptable However, Rachels doesn’t see this argument as sound because happiness and unhappiness are not the only things to consider morally. To argue this Rachels uses the example that limiting religion may increase happiness, but that doesn’t make is morally acceptable because it denies people the ability to make their own decisions. Rachel then goes to create his argument, which uses both a mercy and utilitarian approach. The mercy argument justifies euthanasia when it puts an end to a patient’s agony and suffering. Rachels uses an example of a twenty eight year old man named Jack who suffers from terminal cancer.
In Ben Robert-Smith’s opinion piece published in the Herald Sun on the 16th of January, 2017 “We Are One but We Are Many”, Robert- Smith addresses he Addresses the Australian public with the argument that is changing the date of Australia day from January 26th. He argues that the date should remain the same but should be undertaken in a manner that is “inclusive and respectful” of other Australian’s interpretation of the day. Comparatively, in Kevin V. Russell’s Letter to the Editor he presents the argument from an alternate perspective.
Another issue with legalizing euthanasia would be that society would be too easily convinced to support it. "It would be hard to devise procedures that would protect people from being persuaded into giving their consent." (Foot, p. 112) There is no possible way to know if a person is giving their consent because they actually want to or maybe because they were persuaded to do
One thing to note is that a lot of individuals suffering from a terminal illness usually are financially struggling, which could cause them to feel like a burden and to possibly consider euthanasia (Katherine, 2023). Another moral value used to justify the position of supporting euthanasia is happiness, suggesting that euthanasia increases happiness and decreases misery in the world. Using this moral value to justify their position does not work because it is too broad. It could be argued that euthanasia is justified as long as it increases happiness and decreases misery. This could justify the killing of an innocent individual.
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.
Many pro-euthanasia believers will use the autonomy argument and debate the opinion that patients should have the right to choose when and how to they want to die. In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this topic by stating “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death… (De La Torre).” However, dignity cannot be measured by the level of pain or the speed in which the individual dies, because it is already a characteristic of a person’s worth as a human being (Middleton). Allowing a patient to live their life to the fullest until the very end is surely a more humane and dignified death then cutting that life short in fear of what it is coming through the practice of euthanasia. While death for these patients can be a sad ending, it does not have to condemn a person to a remaining life of sadness and negativity.
Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is the act of permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured patients. This is never suggested by the caretaker rather than requested by the patient or their family. Few areas such as the Netherlands have already legalized this practice. This debate, as split as a fork in the road, is over whether or not this approach should be legalized worldwide on stances regarding religion, ethics, and self choice. I see this as being extremely unethical on both religious and social morality levels.
This essay suggest that active euthanasia should be supported. This essay elaborate the statement in three argument. Firstly, according to utilitarianism, active euthanasia can produces greatest net pleasure and happiness. Secondly, some philosopher Mary Anne Warren and Frances Kamm states that the practice of active euthanasia is kind and merciful, which allow people
From an economic standpoint, euthanasia is a brilliant alternative. Though many see it as unethical, it may be relieving for the victims to know that once they’ve passed they’re no longer considered burdens to their families. Though harsh, keeping a terminally ill person alive for a year costs no less than $55,000, dying in a dignified way is their last resort when they know their condition is not going to improve. Many patients with incurable diseases have stated that the lengthy and expensive time and operations granted by their families are not worth the few extra months they get of spending time on Earth.
If people have the right to live, then do they have the right to die? Is it okay to end someone’s life in order to end his/her pain and suffering? These are two of the biggest questions nowadays and I am here to take my stand on this issue. People are easily confused with this due to the fact that on one hand, we know that it is wrong to take a person’s life. On the other hand, it is difficult to see them suffering and in pain for a longer period of time.
THE EUTHANASIA CONTROVERSY Summary Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.