Arguments against Euthanasia:
1) Applies to a very small number of situations, therefore unethical to make a doctrine based on this. Modern medicine can alleviate pain and suffering in almost all cases. Accepting euthanasia means accepting the fact that medicine is not advanced enough rather than looking at constructive solutions i.e. further advancements in medicine. 2) Signals giving up on a case, insult to determination and endeavor of the patient as well as the doctor, violation of Hippocrates oath 3) Value in suffering: teach the community perseverance. The community will care for the patient and will learn to go beyond its own set of autonomous goals. Show that human life has value behind personal happiness and absence of pain. 4) Focus is to alleviate pain: can be done through painkillers, euthanasia is unnecessary. 5) Life is a gift of God: each human being has intrinsic value and cannot be treated as means to an end i.e. a painless death. Shows sick and disabled as undesirable. 6) Thin line between euthanasia and murder-can be misused. Cost cutting for terminally ill people. 7) Mistaken diagnosis-may affect a person’s life
8) Making voluntary euthanasia legal will lead to a domino effect: make involuntary euthanasia legal, which is equivalent to murder
In June of 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a 63-year-old retired pathologist, was charged with first-degree murder after he helped an Oregon woman with Alzheimer's disease commit suicide in June 1990. Kevorkian was also charged with helping two other women, Marjorie Wantz and Sherry Miller to commit suicide. Miller was incapacitated by multiple sclerosis and Wantz suffered from a painful pelvic condition. Neither condition was life threatening or terminal.
Speaking to the National Press Club in 1992, Dr. Kevorkian defended himself by saying that a terminal illness was one that would curtail life by even one day and since all of his victims had ‘terminal illnesses’,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document