Opinion On Euthanasia

Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide and more loosely referred to as mercy killing. Basically, the performance of euthanasia means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering. In other words, it is defined as the act of causing death painlessly to end suffering especially incurable and painful diseases. If I had to give my own opinion about what I think of euthanasia, I would say I disagree with the entire concept. I may just be using my religious knowledge but I strongly believe that because God is the one who created our bodies, He should be the one to take it away. God gave us the power and the gift of supplication, if we are suffering in a specific state, we should supplicate …show more content…
You have to remember, that life is a temporary, just a fleeting moment. However, Kass and Rachels might have different arguments and views on euthanasia. Kass believes that there are two reasons given to answer whether people who ask to be killed should be killed. One of which is that each person has the right to control his or her body and his or her life, including the end of it. And the second reason is that euthanasia has little to do with choice; death is to be directly and swiftly given because the patient’s life is deemed no longer worth living, according to some objective measure. Whereas, Rachels believes that there are two types of euthanasia- active and passive euthanasia. The distinction between the two is that active euthanasia is that active euthanasia occurs when doctors or medical professionals, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die. While, passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the treatment was withheld; medical professionals don’t do something necessary to keep the patient …show more content…
He disagrees greatly that doctors do not have the right to use either active or passive euthanasia. Kass argues saying that if doctors were given the license to kill then doctors’ ethics would spiral out of control and doctors would begin euthanizing patients that did not necessarily want or need to be euthanized. Kass makes a very important point by saying that- a doctors job primarily is to save lives, they must try every thing they can to save their patient, even if they have to keep them on life support for a very long time, they should be doing so. Killing their patient or “allowing” their patient to die is taking the easy way out. Then what is the point of having a doctor? Why should we even have doctors, if all they are going to do is allow the patient die? Another reason why Kass disagrees with the act of euthanizing a patient is because doctors are not God, they cannot divide a persons’ fate. Rachels’ would probably argue back and create a hypothetical case in what begins with a patient is dying of incurable cancer of the throat. He is in unbearable pain. He is certain to die but he does not want to continue living since the pain is insufferable. The doctor may agree to withhold treatment but it would take the patient