James Fieser's Argument Against Euthanasia

Buddy was my favorite part of my Aunt’s visits when I was younger. He was full of life, always in search of a new adventure. Soon, however, his adventures became battles against himself. Buddy started to form lumps which put him through agonizing pain. He went blind and no longer had the urge to eat. My aunt was faced with the burdensome decision to either put him to sleep or keep him alive in misery. While it was difficult for my Aunt to put Buddy to sleep, both she and the dog would be able to rest easily because he would be out of his suffering.
Should this be allowed for humans? One of the most controversial issues for centuries has been euthanasia and assisted suicide. While some see it as a way to let people be freed of their suffering,
Often, this oath is used against physicians who believe that PAS is moral, because it is believed that fulfilling people’s wishes to depart this world is not actually healing them. James Fieser is a professor of philosophy at the University of Tennessee at Martin, where he not only discusses philosophers and their works, but also controversial issues. In his piece about euthanasia, he states that just as animals are put out of their misery as an act of mercy, the same should be done for humans. He is not comparing human lives to those of domestic animals and saying that they have the same value; he is saying that if an animal can be put out of their misery, the same should be done for humans instead of keeping them alive in pain (Fieser). The authors of the CCM Journal would agree with Fieser’s statement, because in their journal they said that there is no adequate reason why patients should not be allowed to die at a time of their own choosing rather than being forced to wait for their death to occur naturally (Goligher). During this wait, patients are provided with as much palliative care as possible, which means that the medicine that they are receiving is not curing them, but keeping them alive for a longer amount of
Ben Broussard stated that passing assisted suicide laws would motivate people to seek death to save money for their families (Broussard). While this may be a reason to seek death, there are also multiple other factors which add to the decision to take lethal drugs. When people think about assisted suicide, they are taking into account their quality of life and the amount of suffering they are going through at the time. The authors of Critical Care Medicine expressed that sometimes, the positive aspects of being alive are outweighed by the burdens of being alive (Goligher et al.). Therefore, physicians are entitled to help ease a patient’s suffering through lethal drugs if they believe that is the best option for themselves. James Fieser agrees with the CCM, and quoted American philosopher Joel Feinberg, who declared that just as humans have the rights to come or go and to read or not to read, they should have the right to live or die as they choose. If someone truly feels that life does not have any value anymore because their pain is unbearable, then they should have the right to be freed from their pain through assisted