Ethical Arguments Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia has been a highly debated and controversial topic for many years due to its ethical implications. The main issue when it comes to arguing about euthanasia is whether or not it should be supported by society and the government. This means not only the government making it legal for euthanasia to be carried out but also have it facilitated by society. I believe that society should facilitate the humane exit of suffering people. In order to justify this position I will look at how euthanasia is currently viewed and handled by society. I will also explore the differences between an isolated incident of euthanasia versus a legally controlled situation. Finally I will look at the potential consequences of euthanasia being facilitated by society. …show more content…
Passive euthanasia involves the suffering person being allowed to die from lack of treatment over a potentially lengthy time frame. This type of euthanasia is most prevalent in professional settings with the euthanasia being carried out by a medical professional in a healthcare setting most often a hospital. This is seen generally as the more ethically right choice by many people because it does not involve another person taking someone’s life directly but rather letting the suffering person leave the world in the way that nature intended by allowing their natural body to die without outside influence, positive or negative. The differences between these two forms of euthanasia provide a majority of the points of argument for both sides. Many people who are pro-active euthanasia argue that passive euthanasia is crueller and more ethically wrong than active euthanasia because it forces the person to suffer with their condition for longer and suffering more pain than before due to lack of treatment. On the other hand, people who are anti-active euthanasia claim that it is wrong to end someone’s life directly regardless of the circumstances of their situation. Also important in making the decision about where