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.
The supporters of both sides of this topic have many motives to clone or not to clone. In general, I am against cloning in all cases because the spirit is transferred to us through God because of love and our parents transferred it to us through love also through relation. Why some curious scientists have playing the role of God in their laboratories? Reproductive cloning would reduce the sense of uniqueness of an individual. It would interrupt deeply and widely convictions concerning human individuality and liberty, and could lead to a reduction of clones in comparison with non-clones.
When there is suffering, there is joy because it draws an individual to be closer and to have faith in God alone. Ethical view disputes that euthanasia might decrease the autonomy of a person and might be obligated to terminate his life prematurely to end his family’s misery. The medical point of view encompasses the ability of the doctor to provide the best quality of life to the patient, imparting that a good palliative care plan will never let the patient request for euthanasia. Also, legalization of euthanasia might promote the vulgarity of the doctors when given the authority to take someone else’s life; therefore, increasing the incidence of involuntary euthanasia. A research conducted in 2015 by the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice concludes that “euthanasia is dangerous…with errors in diagnosis up to 20% and prognosis up to 50%” (____438).
Religion allows an escape that takes away our evil around us that solves the greatest mystery feeling such as fear. Since we don't have answers to these theological questions,our worships and rituals help create civilization in a part of our life. Since Rushdie states that religion doesn’t allow us to reach our full potential because of birth control, sexuality and STD’s. Religion is that exact reason to believe, simply because faith is the ultimate way to keep going throughout your day to day life. Rushdie states “ as a result of this faith, by the way, it has proven impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race number from swelling alarmingly”.
Nolas circumstance is an example of this. Still, some people think that it is never ethical to euthanize animals but I still believe that if the animal is suffering or is harming its species with an incurable, contagious infection it is ethical to put the animal to sleep. Nola had exceeded her expected lifespan, so there was no reason to continue to have her suffer. She also had a contagious bacterial infection which was causing her pain and suffering, and was also a potential threat to eliminating the rest of her species. Making the decision to euthanize an animal is always difficult and sad.
Assisted suicide Euthanasia is mercy way of helping a patient who is suffering from severe pain from a certain injury or disease to get rid of this pain by mercy killing or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is killing the patient without any rights of taking his own soul which is a gift from god just because he is feeling the pain which could be cured or healed in the future, also refusing medicines and drugs is kind of legal euthanasia even if it is a cause of financial problems. This essay will outline the arguments against euthanasia as no human being should have the right to kill another person even with his permission to avoid suffering from certain pain. Different religions had prohibited euthanasia, there are different ethical arguments as there must be respect for the sanctity of life and all lives must be equal in value, no life is more worth than other just because of suffering pain or injury, some practical problem which make it more prohibitive as there is no way of regulating euthanasia and also gives doctor too much power. So I totally believe that Euthanasia should be banned globally for religious, ethical and practical reasons.
If those principles disappear the society disappears. That is why people are so concerned about this at a time of very great moral change”. It is clear here that Lord St John Fawsley seems to be suggesting that society depends on common, shared morality, but that this is not the case when it comes to euthanasia, as peoples moral stances on the subject are so diverse. Additionally, the medical profession, despite its obligation in the Hippocratic Oath to heal, often places the religious principle of the sanctity of life above the fact that healing involves permitting the ending of life in some circumstances, as Mrs Pretty wanted. Furthermore, many practitioners are against the legislation that would allow voluntary euthanasia due to their moral feelings.
That is very true, but the current laws that oppose euthanasia are for the protection of patients from abuse by dishonest actions and methods of physicians who will be ending their life, not to cause needless pain and suffering (Marker and Hamlon). Although there is little evidence on assisted suicide and euthanasia that is collected from real patients, the studies that collect data from current patients, and not hypothetical questioning, show different results than what is most broadcasted by supporters. These studies reveal that those who choose a premature death do so because of the fear instilled in them by the idea of physical deterioration and lose of community with the rest of society (Nolan n. pag.). It may seem that physical deterioration is the same as pain, but in this case, it is not.
My personal view on the deontology debate is one of, yes killing is wrong, but first and foremost, the physician is not the one taking the life. It is the patient’s decision to hasten the death. Although, yes the physician is prescribing the medications, it is ultimately the patient’s decision in the end. PAS is not a decision thought of and taken in the heat of the moment sort speak. It has a waiting period with numerous requests to a physician for help in obtaining medications; it is a process that, if truly intended as a means to an end, takes some time to get through.
Keeping euthanasia outlawed regulates religion, aids morality, and supports physicians’ ethics. Euthanasia is killing a patient painlessly for medical reasons, even sometimes given without a request from the patient, such as being in a coma. Euthanasia goes against peoples’ one right to life. Some think it is ok because it supposedly helps the patient, but is it realistically helping? There should be so many other options for patients to choose from, instead of thinking death is respectable choice.