Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Bobbie Edwards PHIL 1120 Euthanasia

For patients who are capable of informed consent, voluntary euthanasia is an important and basic right. Because voluntary euthanasia allows people to end suffering, it is justifiable under utilitarian and deontological points of view. Some might argue that it is ethically immoral because it is similar in ways to murder. That belief is wrong because of the informed consent that comes with voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia can be a moral medical practice that should be made available to all who are willing and capable of accepting it. Gay-Williams (2004) argues that euthanasia is ethically wrong because euthanasia involves an active act that is faced towards ending another persons life. Gay-Williams (2004) argues that the taking of life cant be justified. Gay-Williams (2004) fails to look at the quality of life. She argues that the desire to live is at the core of the human spirit, but she forgets that the quality of a persons life determines whether or not its worth living. Some people commit suicide because they feel that their life is no longer worth living; people who are terminally ill might wish to die too. All that is stopping them from ending their life is the lack of ability. It is arguable that denying people a right to euthanasia when they could do it themselves if they had the ability, is unethical. Similar to Gay-Williams (2004), Rachels (1975) argues that passive euthanasia is as ethically wrong as active euthanasia. Because it involves a passive denial or providing medication that might speed up death, Rachels (1975) argues that it is unethical because of a doctors commitment to helping the sick. That point of view fails to take the fact that the

terminally ill have no hope for a their condition to disappear. There is nothing that a doctor can do to help. There is a case to be made that voluntary euthanasia represents a form of help that a doctor can provide. Brock (1992) argues that the two factors when allowing a patient to choose voluntary euthanasia are the respect of the patients self-determination and their well-being. If the only question on euthanasia is if its ethical, a deontological answer is because euthanasia can be seen, as being in their best interest and in line with their self-determination that euthanasia should be moral. The idea that there is something ethically or morally wrong with euthanasia is difficult when its someone making the decision about his or her own life. If a patient is capable of making an informed decision there is nothing that society can ethically do to stop them. Deontological and utilitarian philosophies can justify voluntary euthanasia. From a deontological point of view, the fact that anyone suffering from a terminal illness might want to speed up his or her own death is justified with the categorical imperative. From the point of view of utilitarianism, because the terminally ill make up an uneven part of the nations healthcare, voluntary euthanasia brings a greater benefit to the majority. Voluntary euthanasia is justified by two different philosophies. Voluntary euthanasia represents an important part of a medical system that advances in technology have prolonged life to the point where people can live long painful lives while suffering from terminal illness. There is a duty to provide access to voluntary euthanasia, as its a rationale practice for ending a life that is no longer worth living.

Works Cited Brock, David W. (1992). Voluntary Active Euthanasia Hastings Center Report, 22(2), 11-16. Gay-Williams, J. (2004). The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia. In R. Munson (Ed.), Basic Issues in Medical Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Rachels, James. (1975). Active and Passive Euthanasia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 29(2), 78-80.

Potrebbero piacerti anche