Often times when one’s pet gets sick, they are taken to the vet. Unfortunately, sometimes we are told we have to “put them down”. This is heartbreaking, but it is generally seen as an act of mercy. However, when it comes to “putting down” a human, also called euthanasia, people argue that it’s murder, and not an act of mercy. Euthanasia is a peaceful way of dying for those who no longer wish to live, and don’t want to suffer anymore.
Most of us love our pets. When they get terminally ill, we put our pets down because we love them, and don’t want to see them suffer. However, it is rather hypocritical that we claim to care about patients as well, yet force them to keep living even if they don’t want to. We keep them alive regardless of our failure …show more content…
However, as Paul Wesling said, “We have no fear that owners or vets killing their pets or horses, when this is the right thing to do, will lead to widespread killing of pets” (21). In his article, he goes on to state that people tend to use the floodgate theory to “stymie any change or new solutions to difficult and complex human dilemmas of care.” I very much agree with this; there is only irrational fear behind the slippery slope argument, it’s simple purpose is to keep the status quo. Just as Howard Steeves said “the slope is only slippery if we make it. One thing doesn’t necessarily lead to another.” (Gross Online). Saying that euthanasia puts society in a slippery slope to accept harmful practices, such as the killing of the elderly or undesirable people, it’s as illogical as saying that allowing people to marry someone of a different race or sex sets society on a slope to accepting the marriage of people to animals. Euthanasia being legalized does not mark the beginning of reckless killing, it simply grants the right to die. A right that people around the majority of the world are being stripped …show more content…
However, the following point is one that many fail to address, yet to me, it seems to be one of the most significant ones. Many euthanasia opponents focus on the doctors, and how “morally wrong” the doctor’s actions are according to their beliefs; but these people fail to realize that euthanasia isn’t about the doctor, religious views or moral standards,, euthanasia is about the patient. The patient who is tired of living and just wants to die. As Dr. Marcia Angell asked, "Why should anyone -- the state, the medical profession, or anyone else -- presume to tell someone else how much suffering they must endure as their life is ending?" (Haberman Online). People shouldn’t be told they aren’t allowed to die, it is their life, not anyone else's. Euthanasia opponents aren’t the ones suffering, and therefore have absolutely no right to tell those who are that they need to “have hope”, and that “the suffering will pass”. Some of opponents dare to claim that euthanasia isn’t humane; as if forcing someone to live a dreadful life and denying them the choice to die their preferred way is humane. Death is constantly being looked at as a horrible thing, but for an abundance of these patients, who have entirely lost control of their life, having control over their deaths is the only positive thing they have
Most of us love our pets. When they get terminally ill, we put our pets down because we love them, and don’t want to see them suffer. However, it is rather hypocritical that we claim to care about patients as well, yet force them to keep living even if they don’t want to. We keep them alive regardless of our failure …show more content…
However, as Paul Wesling said, “We have no fear that owners or vets killing their pets or horses, when this is the right thing to do, will lead to widespread killing of pets” (21). In his article, he goes on to state that people tend to use the floodgate theory to “stymie any change or new solutions to difficult and complex human dilemmas of care.” I very much agree with this; there is only irrational fear behind the slippery slope argument, it’s simple purpose is to keep the status quo. Just as Howard Steeves said “the slope is only slippery if we make it. One thing doesn’t necessarily lead to another.” (Gross Online). Saying that euthanasia puts society in a slippery slope to accept harmful practices, such as the killing of the elderly or undesirable people, it’s as illogical as saying that allowing people to marry someone of a different race or sex sets society on a slope to accepting the marriage of people to animals. Euthanasia being legalized does not mark the beginning of reckless killing, it simply grants the right to die. A right that people around the majority of the world are being stripped …show more content…
However, the following point is one that many fail to address, yet to me, it seems to be one of the most significant ones. Many euthanasia opponents focus on the doctors, and how “morally wrong” the doctor’s actions are according to their beliefs; but these people fail to realize that euthanasia isn’t about the doctor, religious views or moral standards,, euthanasia is about the patient. The patient who is tired of living and just wants to die. As Dr. Marcia Angell asked, "Why should anyone -- the state, the medical profession, or anyone else -- presume to tell someone else how much suffering they must endure as their life is ending?" (Haberman Online). People shouldn’t be told they aren’t allowed to die, it is their life, not anyone else's. Euthanasia opponents aren’t the ones suffering, and therefore have absolutely no right to tell those who are that they need to “have hope”, and that “the suffering will pass”. Some of opponents dare to claim that euthanasia isn’t humane; as if forcing someone to live a dreadful life and denying them the choice to die their preferred way is humane. Death is constantly being looked at as a horrible thing, but for an abundance of these patients, who have entirely lost control of their life, having control over their deaths is the only positive thing they have