James Rachels And Williams Arguments Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia- Gay Williams Gay-Williams presents an opposing argument against euthanasia. This reading made me really think about my stance on euthanasia. I personally have mixed feelings on this topic. Gay-Williams states that euthanasia is “inherently wrong” and is starting to become more accepted. One comment I have is that as science is advancing and new remedies are created, this thinking might be changing for some people.

The argument that I am analyzing is found in Philippa Foot’s article Euthanasia. This specific section starts at the beginning on page 88. This argument starts once she talks about the true meaning of Euthanasia and the difficulty in how people see or perceive it. In Foot 's article, she wants to prove that an act of euthanasia is morally permissible, as long as you’re performing it for the right cause or reasons. Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die."

A main point of opposition to my support of Euthanasia is the fact that assisted suicide isn’t therapy or an efficient solution. Many believe physicians should not allow permanent death as an option. This issue also pressures sick people to end

Gay-Williams supports his ethical disapproval of euthanasia with three equally strong arguments. His first argument is the argument from nature. He explains that our bodies are made to survive thus euthanasia would be going against our very own human character making us “less than human” (Rachels, RTD, 355). His second defense is the argument from self-interest. New effective medical treatments, mistaken diagnoses, and miracle recoveries would never be given the chance to occur (Rachels, RTD, 356).

The first one is nature. J. Gay- Williams says that euthanasia is going against nature. We, as humans, have this survival skill in us. When someone decides euthanasia, they are fighting against nature because of the lack of body survival going on in them.

In the controversy of euthanasia, an argument for the practice is the patient’s right to refuse medical care.

Through the time of suffering we should consider this a way to strengthen our faith. In order to recover from any illness it requires that we fight it. If we rely on the knowledge that there is an easy way out, such as euthanasia, then the human mind instinctively tries to take that as a way out. Other problematic issues with euthanasia are that an individual with a non-terminal disease may thoughtlessly select euthanasia without a firm desire to die. It is also possible that an individual who elects euthanasia may change his or her mind at the last moment and then it is clearly too

The topic of euthanasia has many complicated elements and moral perspectives surrounding it. By definition,

Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly ending a person or animal’s life because they are suffering and cannot be cured. It is a humane option compared to being forced to live out the rest of your life living off a machine and in great pain. Nevertheless, people still find it to be against their morals and do not want it to be in practice. Dating back two centuries, the argument of euthanasia has been debated on whether it should be allowed, and controversy follows it around everywhere it is allowed.

“Only a morally bankrupt society would not allow euthanasia.” Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient that suffers from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma. Euthanasia can also be considered as mercy killing and assisted suicide. While it may be true that many patients that are in severe pain may request for euthanasia towards their suffering life, the real point to consider is doctors oath to be heroes not murders, patient’s mindset, religious beliefs, and grasping hope of life. Doctors in the medical field believe that euthanasia should not be law because it goes against everything they believe in.

For many years, people’s opinions on euthanasia have been influenced greatly by law or religion, but these two areas often leave people torn with their decision. This leads people to draw upon what is considered, “ethically right”, to guide their decision making. The morals and beliefs of someone who is strictly religious, is very different when compared to someone who believes firmly in the law, which is why ethics helps us to decide what is best for the majority of people. Euthanasia is the deliberate act of ending a person’s life, in order to relive them from unbearable suffering. There are several forms of euthanasia, including assisted suicide, and voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia.

1. Active euthanasia is referred to James Rachels as mercy killing. It is thought of by people that killing is morally worse than letting someone die. However, I can’t say that I completely agree with that because the difference is that when you assist someone you are ending his or her misery. When someone you just let someone die you know they are suffering every minute of their last existence.

The argument on why euthanasia should be legal is a valid argument because it presents accurate premises. All of the premises are true which makes the argument sound as well. However, since this topic has much to do with morality and ethics, it depends on each individual’s perspective if the argument is valid and sound. On the other hand, there is an opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. For instance, the main counter point that people deliver when opposing to euthanasia is religion.

Euthanasia is a widely discussed issue among medical professionals and ordinary people. The big question is, why is it that doctors who end suffering while also keeping patients alive are applauded, yet those who respect terminally ill patients’ request to end their suffering lives, are often punished? Freedom of choice regarding the issue of euthanasia is one of the major debates. Patients should have control over their own body and should be able to choose whether they would like to be euthanized or not.

If we just look at the case from different angles, we would probably see how beneficial it is, in this traumatic life. Perhaps life might seem to be hard for us sometimes but there are people out there who really are suffering and desperately need to die. It is the latter prohibitive form that condemns active euthanasia" Although the opponents' statement might be right but in some critical cases, it is does not work. Euthanasia is giving people the rest that they desperately need.