"Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death" (Milan Kundera). Euthanasia has been an ethical issue subjected to global debate, universal concern, and has undergone much legislative dispute. The practice consists of a medical procedure painlessly killing a person suffering from a serious disease or condition. As Milan Kundera claims, along with many others, if euthanasia is a permissible act to implement upon animals then it is only sensible for this procedure to be applicable for humans as well. It sounds pretty logical, right? No, of course not! The slaying of a human life, one 's entity, their purpose of
…show more content…
If there are individuals who are mentally or physically ill, it is possible that the individual is a very happy person, but when they are not, psychological, societal and physical aid may be beneficial to the patient. A utilitarian approach would signify that this is morally correct because there is an attempt to increase happiness and decrease pain, for the greatest number of people. If we simply help those who are ill commit suicide, there will be no standards to living, no fight for life and the consequences may be daunting. There are too many differentiating cases that do not allow for standard laws of allowing active euthanasia, the circumstances for each individual are different, therefore no one law will suffice to apply to all cases. Although in some cases, euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide may be beneficial, there are many cases where it is assumed to be the answer, but is not morally justified. An argument exists entitled the ‘slippery slope argument’ which outlines: ‘Although particular acts of active killing are sometimes morally justified the social consequences of sanctioning practices of killing would run serious risks of abuse and misuse, and, on balance, would cause more harm than benefit’ (Beauchamp & Walters). There …show more content…
Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is an issue with no set boundaries or barriers. In some cases, like Robert Litamer and Sue Rodriguez there are beneficial consequences to helping a person end their life, but there are too many situations that differ in detail to provide one law to allow active euthanasia. A utilitarian approach states that it is a duty to increase happiness, and decrease pain, for the greatest amount of people, which in some cases may fit, morally, but eventually, our morals and ethics will be lost if we do not control this act of aiding suicide. The consequences are too ambiguous to legalized active
If there are individuals who are mentally or physically ill, it is possible that the individual is a very happy person, but when they are not, psychological, societal and physical aid may be beneficial to the patient. A utilitarian approach would signify that this is morally correct because there is an attempt to increase happiness and decrease pain, for the greatest number of people. If we simply help those who are ill commit suicide, there will be no standards to living, no fight for life and the consequences may be daunting. There are too many differentiating cases that do not allow for standard laws of allowing active euthanasia, the circumstances for each individual are different, therefore no one law will suffice to apply to all cases. Although in some cases, euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide may be beneficial, there are many cases where it is assumed to be the answer, but is not morally justified. An argument exists entitled the ‘slippery slope argument’ which outlines: ‘Although particular acts of active killing are sometimes morally justified the social consequences of sanctioning practices of killing would run serious risks of abuse and misuse, and, on balance, would cause more harm than benefit’ (Beauchamp & Walters). There …show more content…
Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is an issue with no set boundaries or barriers. In some cases, like Robert Litamer and Sue Rodriguez there are beneficial consequences to helping a person end their life, but there are too many situations that differ in detail to provide one law to allow active euthanasia. A utilitarian approach states that it is a duty to increase happiness, and decrease pain, for the greatest amount of people, which in some cases may fit, morally, but eventually, our morals and ethics will be lost if we do not control this act of aiding suicide. The consequences are too ambiguous to legalized active