But, the argument is still wrong. If this argument is applied to my normative ethical theory, it falls flat. A fetus, or a baby, is created by God, so killing the baby dishonors what God has created. While God does give us the ability to choose how we live our lives, He does not want us to make choices that will destroy what He has created to share with us or made to make us enjoy life. If I was told the only way I could keep on living was to have an abortion, I would let my baby have a shot at life.
Euthanasia, meaning ‘gentle, easy death’, is known as the act of ending somebody’s life painlessly in order to relieve suffering. This is a common topic for debate, with many arguments about whether it is morally wrong to end somebody’s life in the circumstances of extreme illness. People such as Joseph Fletcher, founder of Situation Ethics, may suggest that euthanasia may be the most loving thing in certain situations, and is therefore morally right. However, other people, such as Aquinas, founder of Natural Moral Law, would disagree, stating that it goes against the precept of preserving life, and is therefore morally wrong, no matter the situation. Although there are some situations in which euthanasia could be exploited, my thesis will argue that it is not always morally wrong to end someone’s life in the circumstances in which euthanasia would be contemplated.
Have you ever imagined one of your loved ones suffering from a painful illness? Have you ever wanted that person to die and rest in peace? This is called Euthanasia, which means the termination of a patient’s life who is suffering from excruciating pain and a terminal disease. Euthanasia came from the Greek for good (“eu”) and death (“thanatos”) “good death”(Sklansky, (2001) p.5.) There are more than four types of euthanasia such as active euthanasia, which means that death is caused directly by another person by giving the patient a poisonous injection.
Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights. But they should not have the freedom to choose to end their own lives with the help of a physician.
The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace. One reason why patients would want to end their life with euthanasia is because of their disorders and immobility to get around and enjoy things.
The decision is made by another person because the patient is incapable of doing so himself/herself” (2015). Involuntary euthanasia can be regarded as murder (NHS). There are also two procedural classifications of euthanasia which are passive, and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when a doctor prescribes a patient increasing doses of medication which can be toxic. Although, it is the not doctors intentions to harm or kill the patient, this is still the ending product.
But Matthew Donnelly wanted to die. He was terminally ill and he was going through so much of suffering that he begged for the doctors to just end his life. Assisted suicide could have put him out of his misery. But does that justify the need for assisted suicide? II.
Other issues arise when a person is declared dead when they really aren’t because sometimes mistakes can be done in authentication. Living donors are not left out either in ethical discussions. Some think it is wrong to mutilate a person for the sake of another. For instance, the catholic denomination consider organ transplantation unethical because it goes against the totality principle which states that one part of the body can be sacrificed for the well-being of the rest of the body. No one is obliged to give their organs as a donation and therefore the informed consent has also been an ethical issue.
Utilitarianism holds that George must sacrifice his core values and abandon his commitment to the belief that biochemical warfare is wrong and take the job. In doing so, he would be able to prevent the rapid development of biochemical warfare at the hands of the enthusiast and he would additionally be able to support his family, making this the action which produces the greatest overall amount of happiness/well-being. Utilitarianism, as a moral theory, can be rejected on the ground that it forces agents such as George to give up their sense of moral self in order to pursue overall
It would be nice to be able to choose where we die, how we die, and why we die. Now we can with assisted suicide, but not all agree on the terms that come with this subject. Many agree that aid-in-dying should be available to those suffering from a terminal illness, but is this process of assisted suicide constitutional? Aid-in-Dying should not be practiced in hospitals because it has a negative effect on others and their families. Aid-in-dying should not be practiced in hospitals because it is unconstitutional.