Assisted Suicide Arguments Against Euthanasia

Assisted Suicide Arguments Against Euthanasia
In physician assisted suicide, the option to end a patient's life is provided to a patient with knowledge of the patient's intention. Unlike euthanasia, in
physician assisted suicide, someone makes death available, but does not directly administer the death (Broeckaert 1). Euthanasia is putting someone to
death who is suffering from a pain, illness or injury.Euthanasia means that someone other than the patient commits an action with the intent to end the
patient's life, for example injecting a patient with a lethal dose of medication. Patients may consent to Euthanasia which is voluntary Euthanasia, refuse
Euthanasia which is involuntary Euthanasia, or be unable to consent to Euthanasia which is non voluntary Euthanasia (Walsh 1). Although...show more
content...
They feel that individuals are all capable of living their entire lives, but that suicide should never be an option. This is an important belief for
members of these religious groups. They believe life is a gift from God, and only god can start a life and end a life. And therefore you are
committing a sin by ending your life short. Also they believe the god does not send us experiences we can't handle. They would probably be
extremely reluctant to choose suicide including physician assisted suicide for themselves (Anderson 1). But, for each deeply religious individual in
North America, there are many nominally religious people. A great number of adults who have liberal religious beliefs treat euthanasia and
physician assisted suicide as a morally desirable option in some cases. There are also many secularists, atheists, and agnostics who actively disagree
with religiously based arguments. They believe that each person has the right to their own life. And if a person's life becomes not worth living in
physical pain then they have the right to end their own life through physician assisted suicide and euthanasia and should be allowed to seek assistance
to do this. Many of these people would like to retain suicide as an option in case they develop a terminal illness and life becomes unbearable (Worsnop
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Arguments Against Euthanasia
A spoken word euthanasia of Daniel Callahan by self– determination is an adequate representation of the human issue that faces not only a nation but
as a world. In the self–determination, he expertly points out the many misconceptions humanity has mad about the human. Some belief the euthanasia
to be restful, while others believe there can never be peaceful for any consequences for our actions (Daniel, 344). Throughout this essay, I aim to not
only argue against euthanasia but also to provide some reasonable alternatives. Various changes to the euthanasia have become more apparent as human
issue and doctor find an innovated means to measure them. Many are direct consequences of a euthanasia action. Euthanasia is a serious political,
moral and ethical problem in these days. Most people either strictly prevent it or decidedly favor euthanasia. After reading self–determination, I still
support and promote the legalization of euthanasia. I believe that all people deserve the right to die with dignity. However, Callahan argued that
euthanasia believes turning to four central category debate such as self–determination, killing and allowing to die, calculating the consequence, and
euthanasia and medical practices. In this essay, I will discuss some arguments for and against euthanasia.
First of all, self–determination gives people to decide their own beliefs about life and how they can conduct their life. Callahan was asking the
question, "what does it mean and how far should it

Thesis Statement Against Euthanasia
Title: Argue Against Euthanasia
Thesis Statement: The Philippine should not allow Euthanasia because it is form of murder
Problem: Should we allow Euthanasia in the Philippines?
Answer: No
1.Introduction
1.1 Argue against Euthanasia without Resorting to "Because God doesn't like it."
2.Against Euthanasia
2.1 killing of an innocent man or child.
2.2 it morally questionable to our society
3.Resorting to Religious Belief
3.1 god has the rights
3.2 only god may decide when we will die.
4. Problems
4.1 does not solve the problem
4.2 suffering
5. Conclusion
5.1 I conclude that we should not legalized the Euthanasia here in the Philippines.
Introduction:
People all knows that Euthanasia is the act of killing someone who is very sick...show more content...
All faith's offer meaning and explanations for death and dying; faiths try to find a place for death and dying within human experience. God gives
people life, so only god has the right to talk it away. Human lives are important because God created them, Therefore human should be protected and
preserved whatever happens and therefore we shouldn't interfere with God's plans by shortening human lives and the catholics are disapprove of
Euthanasia. Religions are opposed to euthanasia for a number of

Proponents of anti–euthanasia argue that the desire to die is caused by depression, and as such is fully treatable. While it is true that debilitating
illnesses and terminal conditions cause depression...it is not only common but expected. However, no degree of depression treatment can change the
circumstances of a patient's condition: terminal is terminal. There is no escape, other than death, that can change these circumstances. Depression
medication and counselling are not going to magically return one's self–worth, satisfaction, or ease suffering when presented with the inevitable. This is
not an argument that some cases can benefit from euthanasia, but how can those cases be conducted in an ethical, non–abusive

Euthanasia is the act of bringing about the easy and gentle death, usually someone who is terminally ill or in great pain, which is why some recognise
euthanasia as 'mercy killing'. There are many types of euthanasia: Non–voluntary euthanasia is when the person concerned is no longer in a condition
where they can make a decision for themselves, and that their death can be caused by their relatives or medical experts. Active or voluntary euthanasia
is when the person concerned asks someone else to help them to die. Passive Euthanasia is when a person is allowed to die for example the life
support system is withdrawn.
There is much evidence from the Bible that disapprove euthanasia. In...show more content...
Because all men were created in the image of God (Gen1: 26), the disabled and the weak shouldn't be pushed from society. In addition, from the
Bible you can clearly see that Jesus goes to the ones that are physically or mentally weak and therefore the elderly should be helped to live a normal life.
Some Christians regard active euthanasia as murder, and the Roman Catholics regard euthanasia as ' a grave violation of the law of God' because it
breaks the rule:' You shall not kill' (Exodus 20:30). Some Christians would disagree with active euthanasia but support the idea of dying with dignity,
by setting up hospices like St. Christopher's hospice. The Golden rule states, 'Always treat others as you would like them to treat you', therefore when
someone is in pain, one should obtain help to restore the ill person's life and let them enjoy life.
Some Christians would say that suffering is part of life and it shouldn't be 'dodged' by ending a person's life. In Romans 8:18, 'I consider that our
present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us', here it says that suffering can be endured because even if they
die from this suffering, they will always join Jesus Christ and rejoice with God. Some Christians would say that in our old age we should be ready
and equipped for the suffering that we will

Persuasive Essay Against Euthanasia
Euthanasia
"You only get one life. It's actually your duty to live it as fully as possible." (Moyes, Jojo. Me before you. Penguin Books, 2016). Life is a celestial
object, and we are obliged to handle our lives with prudence. Abdicating your life is vile and dissolute. Assisting in the termination of one's own life is
even more absurd; therefore, it should be hindered. Euthanasia should be stated illegal and prohibited throughout the whole world, for it leads to
disadvantageous long–term consciences including distrusting the medical field and giving more power to doctors than what they deserve. Usually,
those who demand euthanasia are pressured by those around them including doctors, and they are deceived by their depression.
Euthanasia devastate patients' trust in the medical field. If your teacher gave you the choice whether to do your homework or not, what will you
choose? Of course, you won't do your homework because it is the easier choice. Human beings are inevitable to pick the obstacle–free route; therefore,
if doctors were given the choice to simply kill people whose cases seem unpromising, they will select this choice. Doctors will be discouraged to
research and create new medicines. "What is the point? I can just painlessly and effortlessly kill them". Cures that could extenuate pain will not be
discovered anymore, and scientists would not even try to invent cotemporary medicines. Moreover, accepting euthanasia is a breach of The
International Code of Medical

Euthanasia Essay
Euthanasia – Response to Anti Euthanasia Essay
Euthanasia is a topic that provokes as much controversy as capital punishment, primarily because it is irreversible. The question of euthanasia being
right or wrong is one that most would prefer left alone. However, recent publicity on changes to existing laws has ignited considerable discussion and
has forced open the door to a much wider audience. The issues related to direct euthanasia have raised many questions in my mind, to which I am still
searching for answers. I believe it is necessary to consider arguments, both, for and against, in order to come to any conclusion. In this paper I will
address Brian Clowes' article in the "Pro–Life Activist's Encyclopedia", located on the...show more content...
Yet, his persistent use of medical cases where patients were classified as irreversibly comatose and where all decisions regarding their continual
treatment were made by others, neglects to recognize the numerous cases of terminally ill patients, who simply ask for the right to control their
own destiny and to die with dignity. His use of extreme cases, all of which were found in 'National Right to Life News', gives the reader a distorted
picture and neglects the many types of cases where the prolonging of life would be cruel, inhumane and immoral. (Johnstone, 1994:353)
EUTHANASIA SETS A BAD EXAMPLE? I would ask what kind of example are we giving our young by prolonging life at whatever cost to the
person? Is quantity of life always the best option? Is the taking of human life always wrong? In the 18th century William Mitford, an English historian
stated "Men fear death, as if unquestionably the greatess evil, and yet no man knows that it may not be the greatest good." (Bradley,
Daniels & Jones, 1969:194) Here the author compares the act of suicide among the young with the act of euthanasia with the terminally ill. He
believes, in making euthanasia an acceptable social practice, it will inevitably have negative repercussions on the rest of society. The writer argues that
by condoning euthanasia, we condone

Argumentative Arguments Against Euthanasia
Euthanasia and assisted dying are one of the controversial topics that are highly argumentative for its legalization in many countries. Through it is
legal in some countries of Europe, few states in the US, Canada, Japan, Australia is one of the countries that still against legalizing Euthanasia or
assisted Dying.Though once this option was legal in NT, reformation of law has caused it to be illegal again.Discussion of this topic is prevalent in
media which often fueled by the nonfrequent prosecution of individual who becomes involved in the death of patients wanting death by lethal drugs
causing death(QUT,2017).Arguments against legalizing euthanasia in Australia has been discussed in this essay.
Euthanasia is a deliberate intentional act of an individual to end the life of another individual in order to relieve them from intractable suffering
(QUT,2017). This term is often perceived in different ways. Most common three includes– a)Voluntary euthanasia: performed to end one's life with
their consent, here the person is competent.For example; physician injects the suffering patient with lethal substance after being requested (QUT,2017)
b) Non–Voluntary Euthanasia: performed when the person is not competent. For example; physician injecting the patient with lethal substance under
the unresponsive state in post–coma (QUT,2017) c)Involuntary Euthanasia: performed when a patient is competent but has not requested their death
wish. For example; performed when patiently is at

Euthanasia is defined as an 'act of killing someone painlessly to relieve his or her suffering'[1]. It's etymology is derived from the Greek 'eu thanatos'
which means a good death. It is a contentious issue that provokes strong arguments for and against changing UK legislation to permit it. The UK
currently prohibits active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act where the intention is to end or deliberately shorten someone's life. A doctor will
administer a drug such as morphine or potassium chloride. Such an act is considered to be murder and a doctor found guilty of this offence faces a
long prison sentence. An extremely significant case which played a part in determining whether voluntary...show more content...
An example of this might be if a patient is in a Persistent Vegetative State.
Passive euthanasia is to withhold treatment. Life–prolonging treatment can be withdrawn or withheld if the doctor believes that it is in the patient's
best interest. [2] This is not necessarily illegal, although the doctor can be taken to court if motives are believed to be other than the patient's best
interest.[3] A test called the 'Bolam Test' can be used to decide this: 'The case established that a doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a
responsible body of medical opinion, even if that opinion is the minority.' The fact that passive euthanasia is already practised can be an argument for
voluntary active euthanasia. If it was legalised then it would show consistency. Both would be carried out for the same reason of lessening the amount
of pain suffered by the patient. Only the means are different, the intentions are the same.
The type of euthanasia that will be discussed is voluntary euthanasia and there are several areas which must be covered before coming to a conclusion
as to whether this should be carried out. The first I'll mention is 'personhood'. This is the essence of someone which makes them a person,
distinguishing between us and the animals. There are several other aspects of personhood including the ability to communicate and interact with others
and also

Ethics of Euthanasia Essay
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like
putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to
depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with
terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician
would give a patient an aid in dying. "Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations,
...show more content...
Whether murder is done in a peaceful, non painful way or in a very gruesome, unimaginable way, it is still considered murder. Physicians have no
way of knowing 'what is best for the patient' especially if that patient's terminal illness prevents them from speaking. Not only is assisted suicide
considered murder, it also goes against Physicians' Hippocratic Oath. "Hippocratic Oath: An oath (or promise) all physicians must swear to uphold,
regarding the ethical practices of the medical profession" (Lee). By allowing doctors to stray from this oath, it will be easier for them to aid in or
carry out assisted suicides when it will never be entirely necessary for them to consider the option. "In 2005, Texas doctors removed two patients from
life support without advanced directions and against the wishes of the patient's family" (Pawlick). By not legalizing assisted suicides, families will be
able to decide when their family member is physically unable to continue with the provided treatments, but only when the patient themselves can no
longer communicate their wishes and no document stating how they should go about the situation has been left in their families possession.
Ethical issues are not the only problem. Some argue that euthanasia also creates issues from a legal perspective. "One legal question is whether assisted
suicide violates the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law governing the distribution of drugs" (Lee). Such

Euthanasia Essay examples
Euthanasia is often called "mercy killing". It is intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally. It is sometimes the
act of ending someone's life, who is terminally ill, or is suffering in severe pain. Euthanasia is mostly illegal in the world today. Euthanasia can be
considered a form of suicide, if the person afflicted with the problem actively does it. The person volunteering to commit the act to that person can also
consider it a form of murder.
The positive side of Euthanasia is that it ends a person's suffering in this world. Many physicians and psychiatrists believe that it may a humane act.
From a virtue ethics point of view, it may be appropriate. What we seek inhuman existence is to be...show more content...
The benefits are numerous in that the person euthanized would cease suffering, and the families would begin the healing process from grief and/or
depression from the situation.
From Mill's perspective, the person volunteering for euthanasia has a liberty to do what he/she wants. Mill has written that if the person does not
cause harm to others, it is the person's right, or liberty, to do what they please. If a person wants euthanasia, then that person has the sole liberties to
choose such an act, and depart society and life. Nobody is being other than the person wishing it, and it is a volunteered act.
Brandt argues for approval of euthanasia, but killing human beings is wrong, because it injures that person and goes against the preferences of
self–preservation. However, Brandt says that the above is not present in the issue of euthanasia, so it may be permissible. Brandt says that not all
killing is injury, so not all killing is wrong. One should pay attention to one's expressed wishes he says. Euthanasia could be considered doing a person
a favor, because you cannot injure something if you are relieving it of pain.
The negative side of euthanasia is that it goes against natural law ethics, because we do not let nature take its course. We are disturbing what is
occurring or happening naturally to the person. Every person has a natural inclination to continue living. It is also said

Essay about Anti Euthanasia
If someone is terminally ill, should a doctor be allowed, with consent from the patient and their family, to give the person an overdose in order to end
the person's life?
Being sick and weak has driven people to wish they were dead. People like to be strong and powerful and able, and many cannot cope with reality
once they lose the abilities they once had. They become helpless and fragile and it is embarrassing for them to have others see them that way. Some
medical patients loose the drive to live. Certain doctors, such as Dr. Jack Kevorkian (who helped approximately 130 people with 'physician–assisted
suicide'), see the anguish this causes them, and have interceded to help them achieve death by giving the patients overdoses of...show more content...
It is hard to refuse a person death when all they see is suffering, but that doctor could be struck with the knowledge that a person's life was in his hands,
and he threw it away with one injection.
Physician–assisted suicide puts a humongous responsibility on doctors. If and when doctors are given this responsibility–to advise families when their
loved ones are beyond help, and to play the deadly hand–it is putting a lot of power into their hands. They could be mistaken, and a wrong diagnosis
could lead to the murder of a savable person. Or, worse than that, they could tell the family that all hope is loss because of a lack of time, staff, or
resources, and the doctor may be too proud to admit it, or he/she may think that it is a waste to invest in the elderly. They may always state that
the patient is going to die from their affliction and suggest euthanasia in order to save their hospital the trouble of housing the sickly. Along with
the patient being possibly savable, doctors and family may give up on hope too soon. If a patient is told that he or she has six more months to live
with a bit of pain or weakness, he or she may decide to commit suicide before letting nature take its course. This denies them any precious time that
may be spent with friends and relatives in their final days, and, however slim it might be, it leaves no chance for a miracle recovery or discovering a
medical error, meaning that the patient has a lot more time

Ethical Arguments Against Euthanasia
Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1174693/ : This article is relevant to the central ethical issues because it explains the back
story with Dr. Kevorkian and specifically Thomas Youk's case; also, it provides opinions of those who advocate for the rights of patients with
disabilities. Diane Coleman, president of Not Yet Dead, states that this euthanasia movement that Dr. Kevorkian is overall promoting is seemingly
"very threatening to disabled people"; Dr. Nancy W. Dickey, president of the American Medical Association, even adds that "patients can be relieved
that the guilty verdict helps protect them from those who would have taken their life early". Overall, I have learned that the pro–life advocates version
of "proper end...show more content...
She had just been married and trying for a family; however, after this, she knew her quality of life would be gone. She in fact had considered passing
away at a Hospice care center; nonetheless, after realizing that the cancer would slowly eat her mind and not affect her healthy body, she knew
suffering in Hospice would not be an option for her. She started researching euthanasia and came acrossDeath with Dignity, an "end–of–life option for
mentally competent, terminally ill patients with 6 months or less to live". In this situation, a physician gives a patient a self ingesting medication which
the patient can take themselves if "the dying process becomes unbearable." From this article, I learned that patients like Brittany Maynard have
validity in their arguments of dying on their own terms. Brittany states that she is not suicidal and does not want to die; however, she is going to
without her control and does not want to put herself or family through the pain. Brittany also adds how hard and time consuming it was to allow this
process to happen, even after moving to Oregon which is only one of the few states which allows this end–of–life option. Overall, Brittany hopes this
option

Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay
Arguments on Euthanasia In this paper, I will be presenting the opposing arguments on Euthanasia, the controversial issue of terminally ill patients
committing suicide with the assistance of a physician. One of the main arguments for euthanasia is that people have the right to die. Many people for
euthanasia have the mindset that humans have the right to control his or her body and life and therefore have the freedom to choose how, where and
when they will die. This belief stems from the idea of free will, which is a fundamental part of the human soul. Adding to this argument, supporters state
that other human rights include the right to die such as the right to life, which is not the right to simply exist or to a life of minimum quality...show more
content...
As for violating the patient's autonomy, supporters contend that to violate a person's autonomy would be to violate that person's wishes but this is not
the case of a person who does wish to die. The belief that death hurts people stems from the idea that it prevents people from living the life they could
have. To supporters, people who request to be euthanized have a low quality of life and acknowledge that their life will only get worse. A person who
wants to die did not make that choice because they had nothing to live for but because at some point they decided the pain was too much to endure. The
main argument against euthanasia is that it goes against the will of God. Opponents of euthanasia claim the it is God who gets to decide who lives and
who dies and to commit suicide would be to go against the will of God. Opponents also argue that it was the philosopher Immanuel Kant who said that
rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else; Our worth is not dependent on anything. If we
exist we have value despite whatever condition that existence is in. Those against euthanasia also feel that euthanasia is against the patient's best
interest because the diagnosis may inaccurate and the patient is not terminally ill or the patient may be unable to make a sound judgement regarding
their

Euthanasia
End of life – Euthanasia – Arguments for and against euthanasia. (2006, April 1). Retrieved November 6, 2015.
This article sets out the most vital and most recurrently adduced arguments for and against euthanasia. Each subdivision takes as its root, one aspect of
the discussion. For example, autonomy and the inviolability of life, designating how it is probable to argue both for and against euthanasia,
correspondingly, on the basis of the identical facet. It suggests "The account will include such arguments as take a positive point of reference in the
individual concept as well as some that take critical issue with it. For instance, the arguments that home in on the incompatibility of euthanasia with
autonomy, whereas among other things the other section contains arguments that are based on a critique of the actual concept of the sanctity of life."
Supporters of euthanasia encourage the authorization of killing on appeal of the patient in a few situations. Never the less the article also anticipates
how the problem of euthanasia is not only legalization but also the way and circumstances it should be legalized for. It is vital to distinguish between
negative and positive reasoning of self–determination concerning assisted suicide. It helps us to differentiate a positive right of self–determination
regarding euthanasia and a negative right of self–determination regarding euthanasia. Helps us identify the fundamental difference stating how the first
form of legalization,

Argumentive Essay Against Euthanasia
Euthanasia
The mind is a terrible thing to waste, stated by anti–drug commercials. We all will either appreciate or underrate our life based on certain experiences
we live through. Many go through dramatic experiences that make life uncomfortable or more strenuous than surrounding patrons do. Religious beliefs
often affect the reasoning of decisions and the importance of life. Some people live in a vegetable status since their body is still performing, but their
mind is not. The government will not allow their death since it is unconstitutional and deemed as murder. Euthanasia ends a life and is exercised
regularly overseas. The immoral act of euthanasia defies humanity and the purpose of life. Some feel euthanasia needs...show more content...
Latest medical research results indicate the possibility that many brain–injured people have more activity in their minds than anyone previously knew.
The indecency alone should fulfill a person contemplating euthanasia to be immoral. According to Ecclesiastes 8:8 ?There is no man that hath
power over the spirit to retain the spirit, neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war, neither shall wickedness
deliver those that are given to it.? 1 Corinthians 6:20 further states ?For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your
spirit, which are God's.? This statement resolves that your life is important and that the future lies in decisions you make and God allows. For the
unbelievers the fact of removing yourself from this world defies others? respect and feelings towards you. By allowing voluntary euthanasia, the
door will be open for involuntary euthanasia approval. One leading medical ethicist, Professor Richard Hare, said more than twenty years ago, "We
shall begin by doing it because the patient is in intolerable pain, but we shall end up doing it because it is Friday afternoon and we want to get away
for the weekend.? Seeing any type of death except works by God as normal would over time numb society causing life to be less important than some
already see it. Many laws pass without the consideration of the future. If euthanasia were legal, other avenues would become legal

Arguments For And Against Euthanasia Essay
Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term
euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as "intentional killing" ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis,
Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received
great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and
different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are
...show more content...
The patient voluntarily wanted to end his life because he was suffering from Lou Gehrigs's disease (Siu, 2008). Since then, the controversy over active
euthanasia has remained an ethical dilemma for healthcare providers, patients and their family members in America and the rest of the world. The
general public's belief is that, health–care providers have professional obligations to save the lives of their patients regardless of their health status.
The majority of the public feels that, healthcare workers' involvement in the euthanasia practice is a betrayal of the "do no harm" oath. When a
healthcare worker is involved in either active or passive euthanasia, it can be viewed as a disregard to this value. However, the proponents for
euthanasia claim that a physician turning down a suffering patient's request to end their life is also a violation to the "do no harm" oath (Siu, 2008).
The right to die falls under patient's autonomy and the basic question is whether individuals should be allowed to end their lives if they choose to do
so (Sanders & Chaloner 2007). Those in the healthcare sector grapple with this notion on a daily bases because they have to practice under the codes of
ethics guidelines. Nurses and doctors should be cautious in their practice as they balance the patient's autonomy and their professional ethics and
guidelines. Sanders & Chaloner (2007) pointed out that nurses and doctors know that a patient's autonomy

The Debate Over Legalization Of Euthanasia Essay
Controversies on legalization of euthanasia in Europe and America are continuing. The argument for legalizing euthanasia36 is that the individual 's
freedom entails liberty or choice in all matters as long as the rights of any other person are not infringed upon. The argument against legalizing
euthanasia is that it will lead to disrespect for human life. Euthanasia can then be abused for criminal purposes. A financial motive is sometimes
advanced in favor of euthanasia. It costs money to the family or the government to keep terminally ill people on life support which will be wastage of
resources if they eventually die.
35http.://www.angelfire.com., visited on 21st Feb, 2012.
36http.:// www.missionislam.com., visited on 21st Feb 2015.
60
For the purpose of analyzing euthanasia, 5 principles are
recognized by most of the theorists. These principles are:
(a)The principle of motive, i.e., each action is judged by the intention behind it.
(b)The principle of certainty, i.e., a certainty cannot be voided, changed or modified by uncertainty.
(c)The principle of injury, i.e., an individual should not harm others or be harmed by others.
(d)The principle of hardship, i.e., hardship mitigates easing of the rules and obligations.
(e)The principle of custom, i.e., what is customary is a legal ruling.

61
(a) The Principle of Motive or Intention –
The principle of motive is invoked in three situations:
(a)There is no

Ethical Arguments Against Euthanasia
Terminal illness is a very devastating and sad part of life. Every day thousands of people are diagnosed with cancer, brain tumors, and life threatening
diseases. The physicians taking care of these individuals try their best to care for them, offering chemotherapy treatments, radiation, and different
medications to treat these illnesses, but unfortunately, they are not always effective. Sometimes the illness just takes over and the patient no longer has a
chance to live. They are just lying in a hospital bed, suffering, waiting for their inevitable end at the hands of their disease. In these instances, many
patients would beg their family and doctors to just let them die because they were in unspeakable agony. In these instances, Euthanasia...show more
content...
If something is immoral, it would have to violate moral laws and norms. The argument proposed by those against Euthanasia is that it is immoral
because life must be "preserved and protected." The preservation of life should be left up to the choice of the person and not the choice of the
physician. Also, Euthanasia cannot be considered murder because murder infringes on a person's life by taking away the choice in that person's death.
There is no infringement upon anyone's rights however when the person chooses themselves that they want to end their suffering and how to do it. If a
physician denies someone their right to die when under intense pain and suffering, they are forcing them to live a life without dignity, a life of
suffering and eventual death. Their intentions may be pure, but no one should have the right to make someone else live a life of pain and suffering.
Removing their right to choose is what's

Assisted Suicide Arguments Against Euthanasia

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Assisted Suicide Arguments Against Euthanasia