David Velleman ambitiously sets out to prove why people should not have euthanasia as a legalized option. In his article, “Against the Right to Die”, he explores two major concerns raised in the perspectives of the patients and their family. He refutes these major concerns by demonstrating a deductive reasoning from Kantian’s moral theory and also by defining the terms “autonomy” and “dignity”. His argument nearly succeeds, but fails in one error. In this paper, I will evaluate the concepts raised from Velleman and his interpretation of Kantian and then explain why Velleman fails to justify the conclusion of self-killing, which mostly relies on pain present during the time of incident. In the beginning of his article, Velleman introduces
…show more content…
However, he is concern that patients are taking on this choice to die because they are being affected to do harm to others. And has resulted in them, being a burden to others. Velleman also shows us that patients are making this decision because they have resulted with more options that might not be in the best interest in the patient. He concludes his concept by including two examples of a night- cashier and a negotiator. Velleman states that “options can be undesirable” and thus, result in various kinds of pressure (Velleman 8). By knowing the status quo of choosing an alternative choice, you also find that you no longer have the status quo without choosing it, which may offer a problematic choice, thus, making the situation worse, as Velleman would say. Velleman continues by saying that “the burden of justifying one's existence might make existence unbearable – and hence unjustifiable” (Velleman 11). Not only does it create low self- worth, but it also makes a person look at only the cost of benefits in their life, which might result in a “slavishness or neurotic insecurity”; but it should not be dismissed too lightly…It is therefore essential to our remaining to… appropriate object of sympathy and respect” (Velleman 11). Denying a person to stay alive by default, as Velleman would say, should not be allowed for someone to …show more content…
He says in my previous paragraph, that euthanasia can be used only in extreme measures. For instance, if pain was presented in a serious case, a patient was allowed to take the option of proceeding with the choice of physician- assisted suicide. However, what if the pain was caused later in terms of the diagnosis. If that person was to be diagnosed with a disease that would face the same serious pain as the person facing the same pain right now. His conclusion to pain and choice to die can be seen in two different ways, even if “the pain was unbearable”. Another point that raises question is that Velleman fails to conclude is the difference between benefit and rational nature. In Velleman’s claim, painkillers would not be allowed because it provides a benefit, but it would also disrupt the rational nature claim. He says, “I imagine that when illness or infirmity denies one the rewards of independent activity, then the rewards of personal intercourse may be all that make life worth living. To the ill or infirm, then, the ability to sustain the role of rational person may rightly seem essential to retaining what remains of value in life” (Velleman 12). In my opinion, painkillers can be objects that can help a person decide what is good for them, and be able to have that choice for relieving pain,
However, he is concern that patients are taking on this choice to die because they are being affected to do harm to others. And has resulted in them, being a burden to others. Velleman also shows us that patients are making this decision because they have resulted with more options that might not be in the best interest in the patient. He concludes his concept by including two examples of a night- cashier and a negotiator. Velleman states that “options can be undesirable” and thus, result in various kinds of pressure (Velleman 8). By knowing the status quo of choosing an alternative choice, you also find that you no longer have the status quo without choosing it, which may offer a problematic choice, thus, making the situation worse, as Velleman would say. Velleman continues by saying that “the burden of justifying one's existence might make existence unbearable – and hence unjustifiable” (Velleman 11). Not only does it create low self- worth, but it also makes a person look at only the cost of benefits in their life, which might result in a “slavishness or neurotic insecurity”; but it should not be dismissed too lightly…It is therefore essential to our remaining to… appropriate object of sympathy and respect” (Velleman 11). Denying a person to stay alive by default, as Velleman would say, should not be allowed for someone to …show more content…
He says in my previous paragraph, that euthanasia can be used only in extreme measures. For instance, if pain was presented in a serious case, a patient was allowed to take the option of proceeding with the choice of physician- assisted suicide. However, what if the pain was caused later in terms of the diagnosis. If that person was to be diagnosed with a disease that would face the same serious pain as the person facing the same pain right now. His conclusion to pain and choice to die can be seen in two different ways, even if “the pain was unbearable”. Another point that raises question is that Velleman fails to conclude is the difference between benefit and rational nature. In Velleman’s claim, painkillers would not be allowed because it provides a benefit, but it would also disrupt the rational nature claim. He says, “I imagine that when illness or infirmity denies one the rewards of independent activity, then the rewards of personal intercourse may be all that make life worth living. To the ill or infirm, then, the ability to sustain the role of rational person may rightly seem essential to retaining what remains of value in life” (Velleman 12). In my opinion, painkillers can be objects that can help a person decide what is good for them, and be able to have that choice for relieving pain,