Kant's Ethical Theory Of Euthanasia Is Wrong

Many people talked about euthanasia would mess with their fundamental and professional commitment as healers to care for patients and to protect life. Euthanasia is an option that permits the sick to choose death or a life of suffering, yet it relieves the patient of pains they may have. This is a controversial issue that’s been around for years, and there is a substantial size of people who favor euthanasia. It is also legal and illegal in some parts of the world. The contemporary issue that I am focusing on is euthanasia, and if it’s wrong, or morally, lawfully, or both to take a life. In our text euthanasia is defined as, “directly or indirectly bringing about the death of another person for that person's sake" (Vaugh page. 292). This tells …show more content…
71). Kant’s theory is more of a universal, and should be equal in all around. The pro argument on euthanasia in his theory is that it may be the right thing to do in order to end the suffering of the ill person. In contrast the con argument of Kant’s would be that euthanasia is an assisted suicide and you wouldn’t be able to universalize the act of euthanasia. He makes a very good point that it wouldn’t be universal, and everyone wouldn’t be acting in the same …show more content…
“A theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that follows the dictates of nature” (pg. 71). The pro argument for euthanasia in natural law is that it will allow the action whose intention is to relieve pain, even if it leads to death. We are given the ability to make our own choices, and euthanasia is by choice of an individual. The ill individuals who are unable to recover from the incurable diseases or in condition where effective treatment wouldn’t improve their quality of life are the ones who want euthanasia. In contrast to accepting death when there are other alternatives. The con argument of euthanasia is that natural law theory also believes that you should never kill an innocent person, and euthanasia is