Adi Audi
Is euthanasia morally permissible?
Objection 1. The principle of double effect justifies giving treatments that relieve pain, despite the treatment resulting the shortening of life, being that the primary intention was to relief the pain, not to end the life of a patient. This can appropriately sedate the patient without an unethical reason, and is not considered euthanasia. Therefore, euthanasia is not morally permissible.
Objection 2. The act of permitting voluntary euthanasia can give involuntary euthanasia reasoning. Especially with healthcare costs at an all-time high, the financial cost of keeping a terminally-ill person alive may not have the adequate value to sustain life in a healthcare facility. In Ecclesiastes 7:17: it says, …show more content…
But by removing a respirator and allowing a patient to suffocate until their death or by withdrawal of life- prolonging medical treatment could seem unethical, yet situational. This clearly shows that the use of passive euthanasia rather than active euthanasia, is not the more ethical option since direct killing is taking place at the hands of a doctor.
On the basis of respect for quality of life as well as individual rights, I have disputed that physician-assisted suicide as well as voluntary active euthanasia does more good than harm. After all, these practices simply bring an inevitable death quickly and mercifully as oppose to a slower more painful one.
Reply to objection 1. If the act of euthanasia relieves pain immediately for an individual, then it can be deemed as moral logic despite shortening the life instantaneously instead of over a course of
Is euthanasia morally permissible?
Objection 1. The principle of double effect justifies giving treatments that relieve pain, despite the treatment resulting the shortening of life, being that the primary intention was to relief the pain, not to end the life of a patient. This can appropriately sedate the patient without an unethical reason, and is not considered euthanasia. Therefore, euthanasia is not morally permissible.
Objection 2. The act of permitting voluntary euthanasia can give involuntary euthanasia reasoning. Especially with healthcare costs at an all-time high, the financial cost of keeping a terminally-ill person alive may not have the adequate value to sustain life in a healthcare facility. In Ecclesiastes 7:17: it says, …show more content…
But by removing a respirator and allowing a patient to suffocate until their death or by withdrawal of life- prolonging medical treatment could seem unethical, yet situational. This clearly shows that the use of passive euthanasia rather than active euthanasia, is not the more ethical option since direct killing is taking place at the hands of a doctor.
On the basis of respect for quality of life as well as individual rights, I have disputed that physician-assisted suicide as well as voluntary active euthanasia does more good than harm. After all, these practices simply bring an inevitable death quickly and mercifully as oppose to a slower more painful one.
Reply to objection 1. If the act of euthanasia relieves pain immediately for an individual, then it can be deemed as moral logic despite shortening the life instantaneously instead of over a course of