The full article can be read by following the link below the excerpt. Thus, if a physician injects a patient with a drug with the intent to kill the patient, that would be an act of euthanasia, but if the physician allows the patient to die by withholding some excessively burdensome treatment, that does not count as an example of euthanasia. The broad construal is more widely used, so we will adopt it in this series. Passive euthanasia also called negative euthanasia refers to the withholding or withdrawing of a life-sustaining treatment when certain justifiable conditions exist see below and allowing the patient to die.
This argument says that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life. There are four main reasons why people think we shouldn't kill human beings: All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself rather than as a means to an end Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in self-defence or the legitimate defence of others We are valuable for ourselves The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else.
The fact that we are human has value in itself.
Our inherent value doesn't depend Euthanasia good or bad with religious anything else - it doesn't depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value. Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it in philosopher-speak.
We say that we don't think that we should use other people - which is a plain English way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.
We must respect our own value It applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends. And this means that we shouldn't end our lives just because it seems the most effective way of putting an end to our suffering.
To do that is not to respect our inherent worth. Top The slippery slope Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen.
We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of Euthanasia good or bad with religious were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.
In general form it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.
Those who oppose this argument say that properly drafted legislation can draw a firm barrier across the slippery slope. Various forms of the slippery slope argument If we change the law and accept voluntary euthanasia, we will not be able to keep it under control.
Proponents of euthanasia say: Euthanasia would never be legalised without proper regulation and control mechanisms in place Doctors may soon start killing people without bothering with their permission.
There is a huge difference between killing people who ask for death under appropriate circumstances, and killing people without their permission Very few people are so lacking in moral understanding that they would ignore this distinction Very few people are so lacking in intellect that they can't make the distinction above Any doctor who would ignore this distinction probably wouldn't worry about the law anyway Health care costs will lead to doctors killing patients to save money or free up beds: The main reason some doctors support voluntary euthanasia is because they believe that they should respect their patients' right to be treated as autonomous human beings That is, when doctors are in favour of euthanasia it's because they want to respect the wishes of their patients So doctors are unlikely to kill people without their permission because that contradicts the whole motivation for allowing voluntary euthanasia But cost-conscious doctors are more likely to honour their patients' requests for death A study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients [Arch.
The Nazis are not a useful moral example, because their actions are almost universally regarded as both criminal and morally wrong The Nazis embarked on invountary euthanasia as a deliberate political act - they didn't slip into it from voluntary euthanasia although at first they did pretend it was for the benefit of the patient What the Nazis did wasn't euthanasia by even the widest definition, it was the use of murder to get rid of people they disapproved of The universal horror at Nazi euthanasia demonstrates that almost everyone can make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia The example of the Nazis has made people more sensitive to the dangers of involuntary euthanasia Allowing voluntary euthanasia makes it easier to commit murder, since the perpetrators can disguise it as active voluntary euthanasia.
The law is able to deal with the possibility of self-defence or suicide being used as disguises for murder.
It will thus be able to deal with this case equally well To dress murder up as euthanasia will involve medical co-operation.
The need for a conspiracy will make it an unattractive option Many are needlessly condemned to suffering by the chief anti-euthanasia argument: A C Grayling, Guardian Top Devalues some lives Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message, "it's better to be dead than sick or disabled".
The subtext is that some lives are not worth living. Not only does this put the sick or disabled at risk, it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are alive.
The disabled person's perspective Part of the problem is that able-bodied people look at things from their own perspective and see life with a disability as a disaster, filled with suffering and frustration.
Some societies have regarded people with disabilities as inferior, or as a burden on society. Those in favour of eugenics go further, and say that society should prevent 'defective' people from having children. Others go further still and say that those who are a burden on society should be eliminated.
People with disabilities don't agree. All people should have equal rights and opportunities to live good lives Many individuals with disabilities enjoy living Many individuals without disabilities don't enjoy living, and no-one is threatening them The proper approach to people with disabilities is to provide them with appropriate support, not to kill them The quality of a person's life should not be assessed by other people The quality of life of a person with disabilities should not be assessed without providing proper support first Opposition to this argument Supporters of euthanasia would respond that this argument includes a number of completely misleading suggestions, and refute them: Some examples are listed below: They say that most of these problems can be identified by assessing the patient properly, and, if necessary, the system should discriminate against the opinions of people who are particularly vulnerable.
Chochinov and colleagues found that fleeting or occasional thoughts of a desire for death were common in a study of people who were terminally ill, but few patients expressed a genuine desire for death. Will to live in the terminally ill.
Other people have rights too Euthanasia is usually viewed from the viewpoint of the person who wants to die, but it affects other people too, and their rights should be considered.
It includes compassion and support for family and friends. Competent palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person feeling any need to contemplate euthanasia.
You matter because you are you.
You matter to the last moment of your life and we will do all we can to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die. Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement The key to successful palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as a set of symptoms, or medical problems.Jun 01, · Regulating euthanasia.
Those in favour of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia can't be controlled by proper regulation, but they . Professor David E. Richmond MB ChB MHPEd. MD FRACP FRCP(Lond.) (See biographical details at the end of this article) Executive Summary The proposed legislation to legalise voluntary euthanasia should be rejected because.
Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable, deadly and incredibly painful disease or illness. We will write a custom essay sample on Euthanasia – Good Or Bad? specifically for you for only $ $/page.
Religious people have a point of view for euthanasia but they also have views against. "Since ancient times, Jewish and Christian thinkers have opposed suicide as inconsistent with the human good and with responsibilities to God.
In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas espoused Catholic teaching about suicide in arguments that would shape Christian thought about suicide for centuries.
Home Essays Euthanasia good or bad with Euthanasia good or bad with religious beliefs Religious Belief System REL/ Religious Belief System A belief system is a system that is an opinion which determines how we interact with every aspect of out life.
Your belief is something that is stored deep into your. Hard cases make bad laws: Euthanasia is usually promoted by those who have had a loved one die in agony, without the benefits of good palliative care.
The answer is not to change the law, but rather improve standards of care.