While in some situations, it may be enticing to put someone out of their misery through euthanasia, society will adapt to the idea of killing people to solve complications. In the end, euthanasia will be allowed in non-end-of-life situations, that is, where a person is not terminally ill, or in excruciating pain, or willingly requests it. Those most defenseless to euthanasia manipulations will be the abandoned and defenseless members of society. A condemnation of this argument is that, as with any public policy, abuses with euthanasia can be reduced by passing strict guidelines. I argue that it is inhumane to kill a person against their will. In some cases, a person, could be out of their mind and not thinking correctly. A person, could be on drugs and consult a family member. However, the family member could trick them into thinking this is what is “best” for everyone. Although the family member, could be acting selfish just so they don’t have to deal with this any longer. I argue that we shouldn’t allow this. It is harmful to a person and we should allow God to take matters into his own hands. How would you feel if you were sick and a family member made this decision for you? Haven’t you ever been in a situation where you felt like you were talked into something and you didn’t necessarily want to do it? I have and I later felt horrible …show more content…
We need to voice this and show our society that it is not bringing out the good. It is harmful to a person and society if we allow it. It is doing more bad than good. Morally, what makes the World better if we kill people who are ill? Euthanasia has no benefit and it very miserable for a family to deal with. Could you live with yourself if you told your family member to ask for euthanasia? Could you live with yourself, if your family member made that choice? I know I couldn’t and I think it is immoral to think one could look in the mirror with that guilt