In the debate over if euthanasia is moral, the opponents conclude that it is not because it infringes upon human beings natural drive to survive. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that it is when two things are taken into consideration which are: injury and preference. In this essay, I will conclude that euthanasia is morally right solely when the two conditions are followed. It is morally correct because in order for euthanasia to be performed conditions have to be met. In the article titled, “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia,” J. Gay-Williams concludes that euthanasia is morally wrong because it infringes upon our survival and it is based on self-interest. Similarly, the outcome of euthanasia is the killing of an innocent
…show more content…
Brandt attempts to support his claim by providing multiple reasons to why euthanasia is morally right. Brandt’s first reason to support his claim is that in order to perform euthanasia there has to be a strong prima facie moral obligation that cannot be done without killing (Brandt). The example he uses is that if a fat person gets stuck in the only exit out a cave and the cave is filling up with water the strong prima facie obligation is that it is okay to kill the person so the other people can survive. When thinking about if it is a good idea to kill the fat person the hedonic calculator is at play because we are determining the cost-benefit …show more content…
The person who is dying has no way of living without the medical resources and there is a strong prima facie moral obligation to get the patient off the machine so others that actually have a chance can live. The person hooked to the machine is beyond injury and cannot be brought back to life and it is just using resources that can benefit someone else. On top of the evidence that was provided by Brandt, other evidence provided by the New England Journal of Medicine states, “Assuming that 2.7 percent of patients who die each year (62,000 Americans) would choose euthanasia, these patients would forgo an average of four weeks of life, and the medical costs in the last month of life for each patient who dies are $10,118, we estimate that legalizing euthanasia would save approximately $627 million” (Emanuel). By removing the patient who is terminally ill off medical resources not only would save money but can save other
Brandt attempts to support his claim by providing multiple reasons to why euthanasia is morally right. Brandt’s first reason to support his claim is that in order to perform euthanasia there has to be a strong prima facie moral obligation that cannot be done without killing (Brandt). The example he uses is that if a fat person gets stuck in the only exit out a cave and the cave is filling up with water the strong prima facie obligation is that it is okay to kill the person so the other people can survive. When thinking about if it is a good idea to kill the fat person the hedonic calculator is at play because we are determining the cost-benefit …show more content…
The person who is dying has no way of living without the medical resources and there is a strong prima facie moral obligation to get the patient off the machine so others that actually have a chance can live. The person hooked to the machine is beyond injury and cannot be brought back to life and it is just using resources that can benefit someone else. On top of the evidence that was provided by Brandt, other evidence provided by the New England Journal of Medicine states, “Assuming that 2.7 percent of patients who die each year (62,000 Americans) would choose euthanasia, these patients would forgo an average of four weeks of life, and the medical costs in the last month of life for each patient who dies are $10,118, we estimate that legalizing euthanasia would save approximately $627 million” (Emanuel). By removing the patient who is terminally ill off medical resources not only would save money but can save other