Argument Against Euthanasia Essay

1288 Words 5 Pages
While examining the argument against euthanasia (defined as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”), nearly all of the disagreement stems from religious beliefs; specifically, the Christian right-to-life movement (also known as the Christian pro-life movement which advocates the legal protection of human embryos and fetuses, especially by favoring the outlawing of abortion on the ground that it is the taking of a human life. As stated by Gary Langer, Director of Polling at ABC News, in his revered 2002 article pertaining to the legalization of euthanasia in America, “Non-Christians and people who profess no religion overwhelmingly support assisted suicide. But it 's opposed …show more content…
According to the Nizkor Project, a slippery slope is defined as “a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question”-- meaning that there is no solidified proof as to why one event will lead to another, but somehow it’s inevitably going to happen. The slippery slope concern of euthanasia inexorably leading to nonconsenting patients being murdered is entirely obsolete, since there are no actual statistics, facts, or proof proving that one will inevitably lead to another. If euthanasia is legalized, proper legislation can be drafted that will prevent the murder of nonconsenting patients. As claimed by Derek Humphry, President of the Euthanasia & Guidance Organization, in his 2006 article "The Case for Assisted Suicide and Active Voluntary Euthanasia", "This [slippery slope] argument is singularly implausible if one who makes it means that there is a logical connection between the killings in question such that one who endorses the first cannot without inconsistency refuse to endorse the …show more content…
In every single country, including the United States, medical resources are incredibly limited, which leads to making the proper treatment of sick citizens infrequent or unreliable. Many of the already scant resources are used to treat terminally ill patients during the final stage of their lives, as an attempt to delay their inevitable death for as long as possible; however, many of these terminally ill patients do not wish to prolong their pain-filled lives; instead, they wish to end their suffering, and die a respectful death while they are still the one who controls their body, and decisions. By legalizing euthanasia, patients who wish to end their misery can chose to do so; furthermore, by accepting their request to execute their imminent death, medical centers can utilize resources that were going to be used on the terminally ill patients for other purposes, such as treating patients who still have a chance to live and fully recover from their current ailment. As stated in an argumentative BBC article about the ethics of euthanasia, “Allowing such people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live.” Robert Leeson, a published author who is also ranked as the 17th top economist in the world, argues for the legalization of euthanasia in order to achieve unthinkable monetary gains-- which can

Related Documents

Related Topics