Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics and concerns in our society. It crosses many social, political, emotional and moral boundaries which is something many subjects cannot do all at once. This paper is meant to show my personal view on this controversial subject.
Margaret Battin’s article ‘Euthanasia: The Fundamental Issues,’ discusses three moral principles that are typically used to argue for the legalization of euthanasia as a regulated practice. These three principles are; the Principle of Mercy, the Principle of (patient) Autonomy, and the Principle of Justice. The principle of mercy states that suffering ought to be relieved. Unless the suffering will give rise to some overriding benefit, or unless the achievement of some benefit would be made impossible by relieving pain. (Battin, 225). In the case of Euthanasia this principle means that doctors ought to relieve pain if the patients “benefits” are being outweighed by the detriments. The principle of autonomy is the second principle discussed by Battin. This principle states that “one ought to respect a competent person’s choice.” (Battin, 226). A person must only do this however, if it will not cause them undue costs to themselves, if doing so will not violate other moral obligations, and if the person’s choice does not cause harm to others. (Battin, 226). This is …show more content…
However, the fact that they were thought up is because those are things that are in the medical field without the acceptance of euthanasia as a current practice. As it currently stands doctors still feel the need to be cavaliers, are hasty in making decisions, insensitive to their patients, cover up medical blunders and self- interest and payoffs happen regardless. As I have said multiple times before in this paper, laws will be put in place just as any other new system has laws put in place for them. This does mean that people will not try to, and successfully break
Margaret Battin’s article ‘Euthanasia: The Fundamental Issues,’ discusses three moral principles that are typically used to argue for the legalization of euthanasia as a regulated practice. These three principles are; the Principle of Mercy, the Principle of (patient) Autonomy, and the Principle of Justice. The principle of mercy states that suffering ought to be relieved. Unless the suffering will give rise to some overriding benefit, or unless the achievement of some benefit would be made impossible by relieving pain. (Battin, 225). In the case of Euthanasia this principle means that doctors ought to relieve pain if the patients “benefits” are being outweighed by the detriments. The principle of autonomy is the second principle discussed by Battin. This principle states that “one ought to respect a competent person’s choice.” (Battin, 226). A person must only do this however, if it will not cause them undue costs to themselves, if doing so will not violate other moral obligations, and if the person’s choice does not cause harm to others. (Battin, 226). This is …show more content…
However, the fact that they were thought up is because those are things that are in the medical field without the acceptance of euthanasia as a current practice. As it currently stands doctors still feel the need to be cavaliers, are hasty in making decisions, insensitive to their patients, cover up medical blunders and self- interest and payoffs happen regardless. As I have said multiple times before in this paper, laws will be put in place just as any other new system has laws put in place for them. This does mean that people will not try to, and successfully break