More handpicked essays just for you.
Euthanasia arguments for euthanasia
A clear set of arguments for legalizing active euthanasia
Euthanasia arguments for euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Sullivan versus Rachel’s on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel’s argument is logically stronger than Sullivan’s argument. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also on their conclusions about it. I will explain both of the author’s logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors on how they prove their arguments to be true and later I will decide whose argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will give one of Rachel’s main strong arguments and one of Sullivan’s very weak arguments. I will also show if both of the author’s premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on whose I think makes more sense in presenting their arguments.
In Sullivan’s argument he shows that active euthanasia is wrong for many reasons. I will tell you his most important reasons he uses to prove his conclusion. Sullivan’s conclusion to his argument on active euthanasia is saying that active euthanasia is not permitted, that it’s wrong. He defends the American medical association because it says that active euthanasia is the killing of a human life, with lethal injection, which the AMA does not approve of because it’s wrong according to them. Moving forward, the reasons why he says that is because he says that moral intention is more important than the action basically he’s saying that intention is more likely to determine whether an act is correct or wrong. For instance like euthanasia according to him it isn’t wrong to let the patient die because your intentions aren’t bad, your intentions aren’t to kill the patient. With active euthanasia your actually doing something according to ...
... middle of paper ...
...an’s argument. I have shown that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is being performed and I have shown that James Rachel’s has great examples on explaining that there is no difference in passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. Thirdly I have shown that James Rachel’s premises follow from his conclusions not just from the conclusion itself. Also I have given one of his main weaknesses in his argument. Moving forward to Sullivan I have explained how his reasons make no sense according to James Rachel’s. I have also shown Sullivan’s main weaknesses and one of his strong points against Rachel’s. I also gave some of Rachel’s weaknesses but after all I think that I have proven that Rachel’s argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan for many reasons. Lastly, I have given my own ideas and theories of which argument I think is better.
357). He argues Bishop Sullivan’s essay on legalizing euthanasia; the slippery-slope: if a killing was allowed, it would make the world a bad place. According to Philippa Foot, she thinks that active euthanasia is morally right in some individual case (Luper and Brown, p. 358). Active euthanasia should be acceptable because elderly or ill people who are suffering and wants to put an end to their life. However, according to Rachel, he says that “we ought to enforce a rigorous rule against it.” (Luper and Brown, p. 358). He gives two different forms: logical and psychology version of the slippery slope argument. Logical interpretation: in Bishop Sullivan view of euthanasia, he is saying that if we accept to allow euthanasia on a person that is suffering, we might kill others for no reason. However, Rachel objects to this argument proving that rational grounds do not prove that active euthanasia is legally prohibited in every case (Luper and Brown, p. 359). For instance, an ill person and a man with a disease, the first case; the person does not want to die, whereas, the second case the diseased patient wants to end his life using euthanasia which is acceptable to end the agony. The Psychological interpretation does not prove why euthanasia should be illegal because of self- defense. He later states the American Law: the burden of proof; excuse and justification; the criminal
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
There are many different stances one can take when considering active euthanasia versus passive euthanasia. Perhaps one may believe killing someone is far worse than letting someone die, or that there is no difference between killing and letting die. Rachels and Nesbit have different stances on killing versus letting die, both using the nasty cousins argument as an example. Rachels tries to show that there is no difference between killing and letting die and Nesbitt tries to show that killing is worse than letting die. Though Rachels and Nesbitt have well thought through views and examples, perhaps there is not just one side a reader can take, as it seems Rachels and Nesbitt have tried to make their readers believe. Perhaps both views are okay
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
This essay leaves no rock unturned in its analysis of the debate involving euthanasia and assisted suicide. Very thorough definitions are given for both concepts - with examples that clarify rather than obscure the reader's understanding.
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
The argument given in an article by Martin Beckford is that if people agree that some people are better off dead, then they must also agree that it is right to end their lives if the people are physically impaired [4]. This argument does have a true premise – acceptance of voluntary euthanasia does mean that it is better for someone to die.
According to Stephen G. Potts, a patient might seek euthanasia for the benefits of other people (79). In his argument against VAE, the p...
However, Rachels argues that the utilitarian approach could be an inadequate support for a defense of euthanasia. He asks what if a
McManaman, Doug. A. “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified.” Assisted Suicide. Ed. Nol Merino.
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.
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.