Student ID: 42855470
Word Count: 614(part i ) and 249(part ii)
Part (i) Word Reflection
What do you believe?/ What is your opinion?
Euthanasia is not wrong. Euthanasia can be a morally correct under appropriate supervision.
What about the terms/definitions? Are they clear? What kind of problems or ambiguities arise here? The term Euthanasia is known by most ordinary people as it is a famous issue that still remain debatable. There should not be any problem understanding the argument of euthanasia is not wrong. Except the level of acceptance of Euthanasia the argument is trying to convey. The words "morally correct" and "supervision" in the claim are not defined clearly here which may create misunderstanding of the argument. when we say something is "Morally correct" it is a general acceptance towards a certain idea. For A to be more morally correct compare to B, A takes into account larger scope of considerations. Killing is often referred as an immoral act, which an equal sign has been drawn to Euthanasia. As people regard them same as killing, they are therefore regarded as immoral. However, Euthanasia may be voluntary when people rather be dead than being to tortured by extreme illness. By disregarding his/her right to die can be immoral(moral). The morality is determined through balance of these arguments, which can be ambiguous. Supervision in this case may be the key to solving the ambiguity of the morality problem. However, supervision itself is too broad to be discussed. For instance by whom should Euthanasia be supervised under to be independent and safe? Doctors? Government? Medical industry?...etc. To what extent of supervision is considered to be appropriate? If too harsh, hinder Euthanasia's implementation. Too weak may lead to deliberate murder to patients.
Why do you hold this opinion? What are your main reasons for thing this way? Three crucial reasons include:
First, it is more economic wise...