(Hendin and Foley, 2002) If terminally ill patients had easy access to euthanasia, this would lead to the absence of palliative care. Since the first amendment states freedom of religion, anyone can choose what religion they believe in. If the religion they believe in is against euthanasia, it should not be allowed. The fourteenth amendment states you can’t take away a person’s life. Religions, such as Islam, believe you can’t take away a person’s life.
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
Consent is when a patient accepts the medication, procedure or treatment plan. If a patient does not consent, then a doctor or a nurse cannot enforce medication, a procedure or treatment against the patient's will. Panzer (2000) articulates that regardless of a patient having a terminal illness, elderly, disabled or sick it does not decrease the value of their life. However, no one knows with certainty when a terminally ill patient will die. Some patients die within days, weeks, months or even years.
Suppose the patient and doctor decide not to treat the illness and let nature take its course in killing them. This is very common and patients decide not to receive treatment even though they know it will eventually kill them. The next argument is, what would be wrong with allowing euthanasia as a fast and painless death verses a slow deterioration if the ending result of them both is ultimately death. Singer claims, “If there is no intrinsic moral difference between killing and allowing to die, active euthanasia should also be accepted as humane and proper in certain circumstances” (Singer 2011,
Some protesters say that assisted suicide is unconstitutional, and bring up the 14th amendment of the Constitution. It states "No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”. The Due Process Clause allows a person the right to make their own decisions about important choices, in this case, death with dignity. By denying terminally ill patients assistance to dying, we take away the little bit of control they have over their own
Terrorism can never be moral because it violates all “excuses” and torture is an acceptable tactic to save lives. The four excuses that attempt to justify terrorism are as follows: terrorism is a last resort that is only used when all else fails, terrorism is the only possibility for weak movements, whatever works for a good cause, such as terrorism, is morally acceptable, and that all politics involves terrorism. In the first excuse of terrorism being the last resort, Walzer explains that in order for this to be a legitimate excuse, one must have exhausted all political and military possibilities to resolve their issue. However, there is no way to interview the terrorist to prove that they have
We the people should stand up against gun violence. Life is a natural right. Killing is against the law, so why is it we give the "proper authorities" the right to kill those they feel threatened by? Why is it that it 's ok to kill someone if they did something against the rules? Killing them won 't change anything!
John, the savaged learn this from Shakespeare’s The Tempest, which is a form of art that is illegal in The World State. All forms of art explore the fact that human suffering is apart of our human experience and without it we cannot fully experience happiness through love and passion. Religion is also illegal in The World State. If suffering does not exist there is no need for a God. In Christianity suffering makes one closer to God and in Buddhism nirvana is the after-life freedom from suffering.
In the article “The Absurdity of Life without God”, William Lane Craig argues: “If life ends at the grave, then it does not make no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or a saint”. In his argument Craig’s idea is that mortality exists because of God. There is truth in this statement because without the Creator, man would not discern right from wrong and would not have any understanding of morality. McCloskey’s idea is somewhat disturbing because if atheism claims morality is relative many cultures view morality very different and murder could as just as well be celebrated as a wedding day. Craig also states that life without God lacks purpose, “If there is no God, then our life is not fundamentally different from that of a dog”.