Argument for Euthanasia
Dalton Rogers
PHIL 2020-001
The argument for euthanasia is one of morality and utility. When a person is in pain, most people agree to treat it. However, for untreatable or terminal medical issues, euthanasia seems like the best option. The humane thing to do for a terminally ill or mentally impaired person would be to give the option to a patient or their primary caregivers whether or not to press on or end peacefully. There are positions against euthanasia, for which will be addressed later in this paper. The point of this paper is to provide a stronger case for the adoption of euthanasia for the benefit of morality and utility. Euthanasia is a method in which a person with an illness or extreme condition …show more content…
For the case of voluntary euthanasia, this would mean a patient may recognize that their illness is too much of a burden (costs, treatments, pain) to bear on themselves or others; thus, they would choose to end their life for the sake of themselves or others. Even, involuntary euthanasia can be considered morally just if a patient is under a potentially massive amount of pain. Possibly the family of a patient may consider involuntary euthanasia due to the caretaking aspect, or the possibility that the patient may not live a full and healthy life. Either way, euthanasia is a tool to be used when a person or the caretakers decide that it is no longer feasible (due to pain, finances, time, care, etc.) to let a person carry on. This is not saying anyone may take their life whenever, but only when it is seen fit by themselves, their providers, and medical …show more content…
Rachels argues from this point stating we have a societal obligation to end suffering amongst ourselves. That is how he leads into utilitarianism from the point of morality. The argument from utilitarianism is presented as follows: 1) Utilitarianism is the ideology that the highest joy should be achieved for everyone, and that this choice would be the morally correct one. 2) Euthanasia would reduce misery for the patient and close persons to them. Conclusion) Euthanasia is the morally correct. ( citation ). This argument may appear cold, but it is the most morally correct and logical to the situation. The other argument that Rachels presents is euthanasia would be in everyone’s best interest. This can be put as: 1) If an action helps everyone and violates no ones’ rights, then it is permissible. 2) Active (voluntary) euthanasia, in certain circumstances, can be for everyone’s best interest and not violate rights. Conclusion) Active (voluntary) euthanasia is morally correct. The reason why these two examples are in this paper is to show two logical and important arguments for allowing euthanasia to be used in cases where it is called for. ( citation
Dalton Rogers
PHIL 2020-001
The argument for euthanasia is one of morality and utility. When a person is in pain, most people agree to treat it. However, for untreatable or terminal medical issues, euthanasia seems like the best option. The humane thing to do for a terminally ill or mentally impaired person would be to give the option to a patient or their primary caregivers whether or not to press on or end peacefully. There are positions against euthanasia, for which will be addressed later in this paper. The point of this paper is to provide a stronger case for the adoption of euthanasia for the benefit of morality and utility. Euthanasia is a method in which a person with an illness or extreme condition …show more content…
For the case of voluntary euthanasia, this would mean a patient may recognize that their illness is too much of a burden (costs, treatments, pain) to bear on themselves or others; thus, they would choose to end their life for the sake of themselves or others. Even, involuntary euthanasia can be considered morally just if a patient is under a potentially massive amount of pain. Possibly the family of a patient may consider involuntary euthanasia due to the caretaking aspect, or the possibility that the patient may not live a full and healthy life. Either way, euthanasia is a tool to be used when a person or the caretakers decide that it is no longer feasible (due to pain, finances, time, care, etc.) to let a person carry on. This is not saying anyone may take their life whenever, but only when it is seen fit by themselves, their providers, and medical …show more content…
Rachels argues from this point stating we have a societal obligation to end suffering amongst ourselves. That is how he leads into utilitarianism from the point of morality. The argument from utilitarianism is presented as follows: 1) Utilitarianism is the ideology that the highest joy should be achieved for everyone, and that this choice would be the morally correct one. 2) Euthanasia would reduce misery for the patient and close persons to them. Conclusion) Euthanasia is the morally correct. ( citation ). This argument may appear cold, but it is the most morally correct and logical to the situation. The other argument that Rachels presents is euthanasia would be in everyone’s best interest. This can be put as: 1) If an action helps everyone and violates no ones’ rights, then it is permissible. 2) Active (voluntary) euthanasia, in certain circumstances, can be for everyone’s best interest and not violate rights. Conclusion) Active (voluntary) euthanasia is morally correct. The reason why these two examples are in this paper is to show two logical and important arguments for allowing euthanasia to be used in cases where it is called for. ( citation