Global Analysis
Out of the three anti-euthanasia articles that I have thus far analyzed, two share a similar pattern. Both the American Medical Association's “Opinion 2.21 – Euthanasia” and William F. May's “Rising to the Occasion of Our Death” utilize values as objects of agreement, or grounds of a proposed policy (value judgements). According to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s “Facts, Values, and Hierarchies” piece, objects of agreements serve the premises and focus on finding common ground – or “what is supposed to be accepted by the hearers [to get the] agreement of the audience” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 65). Since euthanasia is an ethical subject, value-based arguments are abundant in terms of policy arguments.
Both May and the AMA appeal to the morality of their audiences in order to convince them to act against active euthanasia, defined by May as “mercy killings” and by the AMA as the “administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient’s intolerable and incurable suffering” ("Opinion 2.21 – Euthanasia."). More specifically, they are appealing to the value of what is “good” for the individual suffering, for their loved ones, and for society.
Their appeals to values are not simply opinions, however; this appeal can actually be treated as a fact or a truth. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca qualify that in order for a value to be taken as a truth or fact, it must be universally acknowledged, and in order for it to be universally acknowledged, it must be vague. “It is by virtue of their being vague,” these authors proclaim, “that these values appear as universal values and lay claim to a status similar to that of facts” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 76). Nevert...
... middle of paper ...
...veryone, because the AMA and May were able to show that their standards of evaluating morality fell under their audience's general system of belief of not murdering anyone, they were able to overcome the obstacle of differing value hierarchies.
Works Cited
Agatucci, Cara. "Cora Agatucci's Toulmin-Style Analysis of May's Argument." WR 122 Course Home
Page. N.p., 06 Jan. 2010. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
May, William F. "Rising to the Occasion of our Death." The Christian Century Jul 11 1990: 662.
ProQuest. Web. 31 Mar. 2014
"Opinion 2.21 – Euthanasia." Opinion 2.21 – Euthanasia. American Medical Association, June 1996.
Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Facts, Values, and Hierarchies, The New Rhetoric.
N.p.: n.p., n.d. PDF.
The Stases and Other Rhetorical Concepts from Introduction to Academic Writing. N.p.: n.p., n.d. PDF.
There are three key audiences of the text for William F. May's “Rising to the Occasion of Our Death.” The first audience, in this case, would be legislative organizations or lawmakers who have researched and studied similar cases regarding euthanasia. Since May was as an ethics professor at Southern Methodist University, his tone is decidedly intellectual. An uneducated individual would find it more difficult to read his essay; for example, in declarations such as “Advocates of active euthanasia appeal to the principle of patient autonomy,” May's syntax and tone is formal, informative, and utilizes heavy technical jargon (May 662). In other words, it is authoritative, and enables the audience to view him as a credible source due to his syntactical confidence. Other organizations, lobbyists, or lawmakers who are researching evidence on euthanasia would certainly benefit from reading his expert opinion on the matter. Moreover, his desire to develop a “judicious, regulated policy” is a certain acknowledgement that he is attempting to legally call for regulations on euthanasia (May 662).
Bernards, Neal, Ed. (1989). Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
In this essay I will consider the objections to Virtue Ethics (VE) raised by Robert Louden in his article entitled On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics which was published in 1984. It is important to note at the outset of this essay that it was not until 1991 that the v-rules came up in literature. So Louden is assuming throughout his article that the only action guidance that VE can give is “Do what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.” I will be addressing Louden’s objections with the benefit of knowing about the v-rules. First of all, let us discuss what VE is. VE is a normative ethical theory that emphasises the virtues or moral character, thus it focuses on the moral agent. It differs from Deontology which emphasises duties or rules, and Utilitarianism which emphasises the consequences of our actions.
The cultural connotations of euthanasia involve a speedy and merciful death done for the benefit of the person being euthanized. Many associate the term with phrases like “mercy killing” implying that it is for the benefit of the subject and not to their detriment, furthermore this phrase suggests that the act of euthanasia itself is an act of charity. In her paper Euthanasia Phillipa Foot sets out to discuss the major philosophical implications associated with the act of euthanasia and whether or not they can be morally justified in certain circumstances, and goes on to discuss the tremendous societal impact of a fully legalized and widely accepted practice of euthanasia. She first begins by addressing the commonly held definition of euthanasia,
Thus the AMA has recently announced the implementation of the Institute for Ethics. The goal of this entity within the AMA will be to educate 10% of its member doctors (estimated to be 20,000) on hospice and palliative care. Further, they believe that providing responsible alternative treatment to ending life will all but eliminate the quest for euthanasia. This aggressive new project will be headed by Linda Emanuel, Professor of Bioethics at Harvard. The two-year pilot program is funded by a 2-million-dollar grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Ironically, this foundation is also well known for aggressive pro-abortion funding. However,...
Margaret Somerville, who has authored, edited, and co-edited a number of books and newspaper articles opposing the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and who also is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University, Montreal, wrote the internet article titled “Against Euthanasia.” In the article Somerville blatantly states that any type of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is completely and totally wrong under all circumstances. She offers the two major reasons why she considers the practice of euthanasia to be entirely immoral and unacceptable. The first main reason that is given is, “that it is wrong for one human to intentionally kill another, except in self-defense.”The second key reason she provides is, “that the harms and risks of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide far outweigh any benefits” . Somerville believes that euthanasia proponents base their arguments on emotions rather than on logic and use dramatic and compelling stories to make their points. She later goes on to say, “To legalize euthanasia would fundamentally change the way we understand ourselves, human life and its meaning." It is also stated that if euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are made legal then abuse and over use are inevitable and unstoppable. Another point made in the article is that if doctors and nurses are allowed to assist in the deaths of their patients that the trustworthiness of doctors would be skewed and patients would live in fear of going to the hospital and receiving care for whatever illness, disease, or problem they may have (Somerville). She brings her article to a close by stressing...
One of the arguments used by people who support euthanasia is that the quality of life matters more that quantity. Additionally, the proponents of euthanasia maintain that a person has the right to make the decision on what is good for him/her provided he/she does not violate other people’s right (National Health Services,
In review, euthanasia is performed when the pain is too much for the patient. It is, overall, the patient’s life—their right and their choice. Everyone deserves to die compassionately, knowing that they will slip away painlessly. Everyone deserves to have a choice, especially when it comes to the manner of their death. If euthanasia is not legalized, many people will debilitating illnesses may take their lives in much more horrific ways. If they want the suffering to end badly enough, it is simply done one way or
Beauchamp, T. L.(2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3), 259-274.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term “eu”, meaning happy or good and “thanatos”, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean “good or happy death”.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
Euthanasia is a medical procedure which speeds up the process of dying for people with incurable, painful, or distressing diseases. The patient’s doctor can stop treatment and instead let them die from their illness. It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is also called mercy killing. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries including the UK . If you suffer from an incurable disease, you cannot legally terminate your life. However, in a number of European countries it is possible to go to a clinic which will assist you to die gracefully under some very strict circumstances.
In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’ and ‘right for self-determination’ fail to justify taking one’s life.
“One of the most important public policy debates today surrounds the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The outcome of that debate will profoundly affect family relationships, interaction between doctors and patients, and concepts of basic ethical behavior. With so much at stake, more is needed than a duel of one-liners, slogans and sound bites.”