Active Euthanasia Pros And Cons

Euthanasia is defined as bringing about the death of a person for their own sake. When thinking about the general negative connotations associated with suicide, you would assume everyone would be totally against the idea of euthanasia, but that is not the case. There are arguments both for and against the controversial topic, but James Rachels and J. Gay Williams give pretty convincing argument as to why it should be considered morally corrupt.
James Rachels makes two separate but equally compelling arguments as to why both active and passive transport are unethical. Active euthanasia is described as the doctor not doing “anything to bring about the patient’s death. The doctor does nothing, and the patient dies of whatever ills already afflict him” (Rachels, 291). This may be considered more morally correct than active euthanasia because technically the doctor “does not kill the patient”, but he/she is still
The idea that things could get out of hand when it came to the ethics and decision making behind it, I could see where people may get a little power hungry or decide they want to take it upon themselves to get rid of those they believe are not worthy of living. However, that is only a select few people. The majority of people just want to have some sort of say in their own time clock, especially if they are dying or in severe pain. Nevertheless, not all people feel this way.
J. Gay Williams does not agree with the idea of euthanasia, but he does not necessarily condemn those who do for their beliefs. He recognizes that it “is slowly gaining acceptance within our society”, but he attributes this to “unthinking sympathy and benevolence” (Williams, 319). Williams has three main arguments as to why euthanasia is inherently wrong. These include: the argument from nature, the argument from self-interest, and the argument from practical