Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

(Foot, p.100) She further justifies this argument by stating that as long as we put into consideration the interests of the person involved and only the benefits of that person that euthanasia can morally acknowledge. I believe that it

Many ethical issues can be raised about this topic, but this paper will focus on only one: assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is a morally right option for people that have completely exhausted their options and can 't bear to live their life anymore. Assisted suicide can be broken down into two categories: passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is allowing someone to die by not taking steps to prolong their life.

Utilitarianism is a one of the ethical theory that was discussed in the first half of the class that applies to the case of Euthanasia. Utilitarianism is the moral worth of an action based on consequences (the greatest good principle). Therefore, utilitarianism can be applied to Euthanasia because it produce happiness for patients and their family by avoiding pain. However, I believe that Euthanasia should not be morally allowed. Euthanasia is an action done intentionally to end life to end the pain and sufferings from a terminal illness.

While euthanasia can be helpful for someone in extreme amounts of pain, is it going against the will of god? I believe that the end of our life if something that we cannot determine, it is

It was the only rational that we could come to initially; being that he just killed the woman he loved his entire adult life, the one he walked down the alter with, the one he had children with, grandchildren with, and made a life with. Our feelings were of sadness, that he thought this was his only

For example, Smith’s personal feelings are further seen in his statement saying “Supporting another’s self-destruction … sends an unintentional but clear message to the person: Yes, your life is no longer worth living; you are a burden; you are better off dead (and we’re better off with you dead, too)” (Smith 8). Smith is basically and obviously testing the reader’s soft-heartedness with this statement by suggesting that one might think this at one point in the chaos of your loved one being sick. It strongly shows that making the best and most accurate choice of care after being done with treatments, that are not working any longer, is critical.

Thank you to N7 for accepting this debate. It is my first. I apologize up front if my formatting or technique is lacking. Feedback is appreciated. I affirm the resolution that “It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.”

It’s immoral to be in favor of the death penalty. People who support it believe that by executing criminals well prevent them from murdering again, and they feel they deserve to feel the feeling of cruelty as they did to others. Citizens of the United States are fond to similar privileges and assurances. As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People believe that if a murder takes this rights from a person, why should they still be connected to society?

The subject I am looking into is torture and the first article I am looking at is Torture-The Case for Dirty Harry, written by Uwe Steinhoff. Uwe Steinhoff is arguing that torture might just be more justifiable and morally okay than what most people may think. Steinhoff’s first argument towards this point is that people kill other people, and some killings are justified. Therefore, considering that torture is seemingly better than being killed, torture should be justified in that way that some of these killings are justified.

Some ask why shouldn’t we be able to help someone’s misery by helping them die? Howard Ball is one to claim it is the compassionate thing to do. He says when a person we love is in misery we have an emotional response. He states that the best way to help another who is suffering is to assist them in the act of taking their own life. It is not right to destroy the person due to pain or misery on purpose.

If somebody is not receiving life-sustaining treatment, but is still suffering greatly, then allowing voluntary active euthanasia would allow him or her to escape his or her suffering. They cannot simply "pull the plug" because they are just simply suffering with no life sustaining treatment being received, or even available. Brock also points to the fact that many people would refuse euthanasia, even if it were a legal option. He points to the Netherlands as being an euthanasia permitting country, and the number of people who choose euthanasia in the Netherlands is still very low. Brock continues to later say that statistics and certain polls have shown that the majority of the American

They should instead provide better palliative care services aimed at managing symptoms and making the ill comfortable especially as they approach death that way that could help the ill live more fully with the dying

As I close please consider these words by Dr.Peter Saunders "The right to die can easily

James Rachel’s proposal states that in most cases, though not in all, it’s worse to kill someone than to let them die (Mappes & DeGrazia, 397). The answer to the question is yes, I believe active and passive euthanasia can be justifiably moral and ethically sound when using Act Utilitarianism. The killing of someone has been the major objection to euthanasia throughout history. According to a utilitarian by the name Peter Singer, we need to ask ourselves what makes it wrong to kill someone, not what is wrong about killing someone (http://learning.hccs.edu). An act utilitarian would most likely answer this question by saying that whatever happiness one has ends when killing them, therefore killing is bad because when someone is dead they are no longer happy.

While many believe that assisted suicide is morally wrong and violates the basic tenets of medicine, people should be able to die with dignity and stop their suffering to let them die happier. Assisted suicide has been a big controversy lately and I think it is a good thing to make legal. Terminally sick people should be able to end their pain and suffering.