Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Ethics Paper Part 2: Complete Paper.
Euthanasia.
Dan Brock, in his work of writing on “Voluntary Active Euthanasia,” argues in support of euthanasia. In this work, he says the part played by those who implement it entirely relies on respecting the wishes given by the patient. The act is also aimed at providing the patient a “good death” (Brock, 17). The pillars that support voluntary active euthanasia are the individuals’ well-being, autonomy, and self-determination. Autonomy and self-determination protect the rights of an individual when it comes to them making their personal decisions without the influence of religion, government, or any other external forces. Regarding this, therefore, ought to be extended to the end of life. In an effort that the patient wants to be relieved of the burden of suffering, Brock backs them up, saying they are justified to do that. This, in Brock’s view, helps the affected person get relieved from vast amounts of suffering.
Contrary to the argument mention above that supports euthanasia, another article, titled “Moral standing, the value of lives, and speciesism” by Frey, argues against it. In his position, Frey regards human life more important than animal life. He feels should it be possible, then animal parts should be used for transplant purposes in the human body because human beings have moral standing (Frey, 43). In view, human life is way essential and more valuable than anything else and that everything humanly possible should be done to ensure that human life is guarded. At no point in time should human life be taken away just for the sake of having the pa rest easy. Neither autonomy nor agency are relevant factors to be considered to take away one’s life just because they are in deep pain.
In my opinion, the practice of euthanasia is against the moral values for life. Ethically, everything humanly possible should be done to ensure that human life is protected. Should there be an incidence of death, it ought to be natural. Even though some ethical theories in the past cited medical reasons in justification for euthanasia, we equally have the theories that stood with a contrary opinion. That notwithstanding, the final decree on this subject solely lies in the hands of the policymakers.
The subject on euthanasia and whether or not it is worth being practiced has attracted numerous discussions and arguments across the globe. Through these arguments, the subject has gained both strengths and weaknesses. The fact that human rights are highly regarded in today’s world, and everyone has a right to choose has given this argument the power it has. Autonomy provides for people to decide what should be done in their lives. On the other hand, the slippery slope argument, which is against euthanasia, is the point of weakness to the argument. The slippery slope argument has a weakness attached to it. This argument fails to give enough detail of what people would use to avoid euthanasia when it is needed. As a way to challenge this argument, the competence argument comes into play. This argument explains the extent to which a critically ill person is competent enough to make an autonomous choice.
Ethical thinking concerning euthanasia has several fundamental approaches. Medical and religious approaches are vital to this perspective. The religious approach sets a firm stand against euthanasia. On the other hand, the therapeutic approach gives leeway for the practice of euthanasia. In cases where the patient is competent enough to make such a decision, the autonomy dictates that they are granted their wish.
References.
Frey, Raymond G. “Moral standing, the value of lives, and speciesism.” Between Species 4.3 (1988): 10.
Brock, Dan W. “Voluntary active euthanasia.” (2008).
.
Euthanasia.
Dan Brock, in his work of writing on “Voluntary Active Euthanasia,” argues in support of euthanasia. In this work, he says the part played by those who implement it entirely relies on respecting the wishes given by the patient. The act is also aimed at providing the patient a “good death” (Brock, 17). The pillars that support voluntary active euthanasia are the individuals’ well-being, autonomy, and self-determination. Autonomy and self-determination protect the rights of an individual when it comes to them making their personal decisions without the influence of religion, government, or any other external forces. Regarding this, therefore, ought to be extended to the end of life. In an effort that the patient wants to be relieved of the burden of suffering, Brock backs them up, saying they are justified to do that. This, in Brock’s view, helps the affected person get relieved from vast amounts of suffering.
Contrary to the argument mention above that supports euthanasia, another article, titled “Moral standing, the value of lives, and speciesism” by Frey, argues against it. In his position, Frey regards human life more important than animal life. He feels should it be possible, then animal parts should be used for transplant purposes in the human body because human beings have moral standing (Frey, 43). In view, human life is way essential and more valuable than anything else and that everything humanly possible should be done to ensure that human life is guarded. At no point in time should human life be taken away just for the sake of having the pa rest easy. Neither autonomy nor agency are relevant factors to be considered to take away one’s life just because they are in deep pain.
In my opinion, the practice of euthanasia is against the moral values for life. Ethically, everything humanly possible should be done to ensure that human life is protected. Should there be an incidence of death, it ought to be natural. Even though some ethical theories in the past cited medical reasons in justification for euthanasia, we equally have the theories that stood with a contrary opinion. That notwithstanding, the final decree on this subject solely lies in the hands of the policymakers.
The subject on euthanasia and whether or not it is worth being practiced has attracted numerous discussions and arguments across the globe. Through these arguments, the subject has gained both strengths and weaknesses. The fact that human rights are highly regarded in today’s world, and everyone has a right to choose has given this argument the power it has. Autonomy provides for people to decide what should be done in their lives. On the other hand, the slippery slope argument, which is against euthanasia, is the point of weakness to the argument. The slippery slope argument has a weakness attached to it. This argument fails to give enough detail of what people would use to avoid euthanasia when it is needed. As a way to challenge this argument, the competence argument comes into play. This argument explains the extent to which a critically ill person is competent enough to make an autonomous choice.
Ethical thinking concerning euthanasia has several fundamental approaches. Medical and religious approaches are vital to this perspective. The religious approach sets a firm stand against euthanasia. On the other hand, the therapeutic approach gives leeway for the practice of euthanasia. In cases where the patient is competent enough to make such a decision, the autonomy dictates that they are granted their wish.
References.
Frey, Raymond G. “Moral standing, the value of lives, and speciesism.” Between Species 4.3 (1988): 10.
Brock, Dan W. “Voluntary active euthanasia.” (2008).