Why Is Euthanasia Ethically Wrong
Mercy, Autonomy, and Justice
A part of life is facing death. There are numerous ways how death can occur; however, the most controversial seems to be the morality of euthanasia. “Euthanasia is generally defined as the act, undertaken only by a physician, that intentionally ends the life of a person at his or her request” (Pereira: 1).The specialist therefore distributes the lethal substance. On the other hand, in physician assisted suicide, a person self-administers the lethal substance prescribed. The fight of physician assisted suicide and voluntary suicide threatens many. The duty of the doctor, the suffering of the patient and the restrictions of law are all fighting against each other, but in the end one will choose what is morally right-for …show more content…
Laws and precautions were taken to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Such as perfectly healthy people like the depressed, the retarded, and the demented, demanding euthanasia. "Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children and people with dementia" (Pereira: 1). The argument of competence versus not competent turns out to be a sensitive subject. An incompetent person wanting to be euthanized would be denied due to the standard argument." If a person is suffering but not competent, then it would seem grossly unfair to deny relief simply because that person lacks competence (Callahan: 14). In the end everyone should be afforded the same mercy. To back track, the argument of our right to self-determination "is that that a competent, adult person should have a right to euthanasia for the relief of suffering" (Callahan: 14). People’s autonomy or self-determination is an influential factor in legalizing euthanasia. Therefore, to exclude the nonvoluntary killing of the depressed, the retarded, and the demented is done by the showing of mental competence to effect self-determination. To legitimize the situation of a competent versus a non-competent patient, there appears to be "little resistance to denying any competent person the right to be killed, sick or not; and little resistance to killing the incompetent, so long as there is a good reason to believe they are suffering" (Callahan: 15). The Supreme Court held that "No right is more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of the individual to the possession and control of his own person" (Callahan: 12). In other words, if one has control over their own body, they have the right to say what happens to their body whether that leads to physician assisted suicide or
A part of life is facing death. There are numerous ways how death can occur; however, the most controversial seems to be the morality of euthanasia. “Euthanasia is generally defined as the act, undertaken only by a physician, that intentionally ends the life of a person at his or her request” (Pereira: 1).The specialist therefore distributes the lethal substance. On the other hand, in physician assisted suicide, a person self-administers the lethal substance prescribed. The fight of physician assisted suicide and voluntary suicide threatens many. The duty of the doctor, the suffering of the patient and the restrictions of law are all fighting against each other, but in the end one will choose what is morally right-for …show more content…
Laws and precautions were taken to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Such as perfectly healthy people like the depressed, the retarded, and the demented, demanding euthanasia. "Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children and people with dementia" (Pereira: 1). The argument of competence versus not competent turns out to be a sensitive subject. An incompetent person wanting to be euthanized would be denied due to the standard argument." If a person is suffering but not competent, then it would seem grossly unfair to deny relief simply because that person lacks competence (Callahan: 14). In the end everyone should be afforded the same mercy. To back track, the argument of our right to self-determination "is that that a competent, adult person should have a right to euthanasia for the relief of suffering" (Callahan: 14). People’s autonomy or self-determination is an influential factor in legalizing euthanasia. Therefore, to exclude the nonvoluntary killing of the depressed, the retarded, and the demented is done by the showing of mental competence to effect self-determination. To legitimize the situation of a competent versus a non-competent patient, there appears to be "little resistance to denying any competent person the right to be killed, sick or not; and little resistance to killing the incompetent, so long as there is a good reason to believe they are suffering" (Callahan: 15). The Supreme Court held that "No right is more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of the individual to the possession and control of his own person" (Callahan: 12). In other words, if one has control over their own body, they have the right to say what happens to their body whether that leads to physician assisted suicide or