Ethical Dilemma: Euthanasia
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of euthanasia is, ‘the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering’
(“Euthanasia”). This definition makes the ethical argument seem almost unanimous: suffering is a terrible thing, so we, as human beings, have a responsibility to do everything and anything we can to end someone’s pain. Many advocates of euthanasia rely on two simple but choice-pleasing arguments. That a person’s autonomy, along with compassion for the suffering, take precedence.
The opposition claims that it is not that simple, they claim that euthanasia defies the sanctity of life and the physician’s role, and that there is a large …show more content…
The two strongest arguments that advocates of this topic hold include a person’s right to autonomy, and the compassion for the suffering. Autonomy—the right of self- determination—is something that people, especially American’s, believe is a very powerful given right. To take away autonomy would be to take away everything freedom stands for. As for the compassion for the suffering, advocates believe that if a terminally ill patient is fully-aware and conscious and requests euthanasia, it is their right to receive it. Advocates for euthanasia believe that it is a humane way of day—versus the alternative of a gruesome suicide—and that it is respecting the dignity of the dying patient. Looking solely at the advocating side of the argument,
Brockney 2 individuals would believe that the choice is simple and having the option available would please the majority, such as with utilitarianistic moral frames. People who want euthanasia can choose it and those that do not want euthanasia will not choose it. However, this argument fails the criteria of a valid moral argument—the dispute is not about choice and must be taken further. Rather, if euthanasia itself is morally …show more content…
Without that hope and help those patients could have opted for euthanasia and would have never experienced happiness or joy again. This correspondingly ties into the slippery-slope and abuse aspect that many opponents of euthanasia point out. It is inconsistent to offer euthanasia to competent patients, but deny it for non-competent patients. For instance, if an Alzheimer patient wishes to request euthanasia but lacks a perceived decision-making capability by physicians, euthanasia would not be permitted. However, this is inconsistent and falls short of the argument
Brockney 3 that promotes euthanasia as a choice all who desire should be allowed. Another potential slippery- slope aspect of allowing euthanasia that is pragmatic is the possibility of laziness. It is widely known that it is within human nature to fall short of expectations at some point. A physician could begin by diligently ensuring that all euthanasia cases are taken care of precisely and carefully, yet, this diligence could eventually become lacking and a patient who does not meet the necessary requirements could lose their life (Lo 154).
Opponents of euthanasia claim that euthanasia defies the sanctity of life and the
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of euthanasia is, ‘the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering’
(“Euthanasia”). This definition makes the ethical argument seem almost unanimous: suffering is a terrible thing, so we, as human beings, have a responsibility to do everything and anything we can to end someone’s pain. Many advocates of euthanasia rely on two simple but choice-pleasing arguments. That a person’s autonomy, along with compassion for the suffering, take precedence.
The opposition claims that it is not that simple, they claim that euthanasia defies the sanctity of life and the physician’s role, and that there is a large …show more content…
The two strongest arguments that advocates of this topic hold include a person’s right to autonomy, and the compassion for the suffering. Autonomy—the right of self- determination—is something that people, especially American’s, believe is a very powerful given right. To take away autonomy would be to take away everything freedom stands for. As for the compassion for the suffering, advocates believe that if a terminally ill patient is fully-aware and conscious and requests euthanasia, it is their right to receive it. Advocates for euthanasia believe that it is a humane way of day—versus the alternative of a gruesome suicide—and that it is respecting the dignity of the dying patient. Looking solely at the advocating side of the argument,
Brockney 2 individuals would believe that the choice is simple and having the option available would please the majority, such as with utilitarianistic moral frames. People who want euthanasia can choose it and those that do not want euthanasia will not choose it. However, this argument fails the criteria of a valid moral argument—the dispute is not about choice and must be taken further. Rather, if euthanasia itself is morally …show more content…
Without that hope and help those patients could have opted for euthanasia and would have never experienced happiness or joy again. This correspondingly ties into the slippery-slope and abuse aspect that many opponents of euthanasia point out. It is inconsistent to offer euthanasia to competent patients, but deny it for non-competent patients. For instance, if an Alzheimer patient wishes to request euthanasia but lacks a perceived decision-making capability by physicians, euthanasia would not be permitted. However, this is inconsistent and falls short of the argument
Brockney 3 that promotes euthanasia as a choice all who desire should be allowed. Another potential slippery- slope aspect of allowing euthanasia that is pragmatic is the possibility of laziness. It is widely known that it is within human nature to fall short of expectations at some point. A physician could begin by diligently ensuring that all euthanasia cases are taken care of precisely and carefully, yet, this diligence could eventually become lacking and a patient who does not meet the necessary requirements could lose their life (Lo 154).
Opponents of euthanasia claim that euthanasia defies the sanctity of life and the