Argumentative Essay on Euthanasia Outline. Introduction. Thesis: Despite the argument put across by both sides of the debate, euthanasia is legally and morally wrong since it disregards the value of human life. Body. Paragraph 1: Euthanasia should be condemned by all means necessary since it involves ending the life of a human blogger.comted Reading Time: 7 mins For them, the issue of cost and violation of human rights are the two most important arguments presented during euthanasia debates. Even though those who support Euthanasia argue that it helps patients die with and help in containing the overall cost of One of the main arguments is that euthanasia could be an ethical issue and can be seen as assisted murder. Physicians are not forced to provide the euthanasia doses; the physicians who do, have agreed to do so. As well as the patient is asking to die, they are not being killed against their will
An Argument Against Euthanasia Argumentative Essay - Sample Essays
There are many approaches to the concept and practice of euthanasia. In one definition, euthanasia is described as a quick death in which pain is almost absent. However, some countries allow euthanasia to be performed on individuals on their own consent or with the approval of a next of kin. Euthanasia has been a subject of arguments among religious authorities. It has also been a subject of controversy and study in the complex field of philosophy.
Some of the philosophies revolve around the extent to which life may not be worth living, while other theories revolve around the duty of the parties involved in a case of euthanasia. Deontology has been against euthanasia from many perspectives.
Many ethicists and authors who have used deontology against euthanasia have relied on the concept of duty. Philosophical deontology revolves around principles of duty. One is obligated to perform duties even when odds are against success. There are various forms of philosophical deontology. One of the most popular argumentative essay against euthanasia to deontology is the Kantian philosophy of duty. Other authors such as Brian Kane have indirectly used deontology to present an argument favoring preservation of life.
Thus, when deontology is applied to euthanasia, it revolves around the duty to preserve life. According to Kant, argumentative essay against euthanasia, one must not lie to argumentative essay against euthanasia potential murderer to alleviate an almost certain act of murder.
Deontology provides one of the strongest arguments against euthanasia, argumentative essay against euthanasia. However, in the quest to establish an argument against euthanasia, it is necessary to have a positive attitude towards living. From that point, it is possible to establish a solid argument against euthanasia using deontology. Brian Kane uses Hippocratic philosophy to argue against euthanasia.
When one performs the contrary action of killing, then this is considered murder. There is an exception of those people who are killed for their transgressions against ethical principles of a society.
Thus, killing for argumentative essay against euthanasia other reason, including mercy, is murder. On the contrary, the ability to extend life and heal diseases and other afflictions has been acquired by humanity through laborious research and enlightenment. Thus, it is our duty to preserve life rather than kill.
Kane observes that killing does not change its nature even when technology and modern medicine are used to camouflage the negligence of duty behind euthanasia.
He later argues that even Christian doctrines and other religious beliefs consider life it all its different forms, a sanctified gift from God.
In that case, euthanasia is considered a betrayal of the person under care. The decision to perform a mercy killing on a suffering individual is abandonment of a person with argumentative essay against euthanasia the medic performing the euthanasia has shown immeasurable solidarity earlier by providing care and support. On the other hand, Kantian deontology has its own special argument against euthanasia. All aspects of Kantian philosophy revolve around duty, goodwill and categorical imperative, the philosophy of pure reason.
One should observe duties at all time despite the odds. In one illustration, Kant argues that it is immoral to lie to a murderer in order to alleviate occurrence of the murder. He argues that lying to anyone denies one the freedom to make a rational deduction.
In the case of euthanasia, Kantian philosophy can be applied to imply that we must preserve life at all costs. This has led to development of modern medicine, which is a universal practice.
For this reason, it is a universal duty for everybody to work argumentative essay against euthanasia extending life in its various forms regardless of the situation. Doing so would go against the duty to preserve life. These people have been charged with the duty to preserve life through application of technology and modern medicine.
This universally accepted practice is applied in all societies in the world. A medic should thus, not perform euthanasia under any circumstances. In addition, the medic must go to the furthest extent in his or her quest to observe the duty to preserve life, argumentative essay against euthanasia.
Kantian philosophy can also be applied from another perspective to the same effect. Kantian deontology directly addresses the issue of duty to oneself. The same kind of reasoning is applied to suicide. In fact, suicide is not acceptable in many societies. Similarly, it is universally unacceptable to take any life since it goes against ones duty as it is universally defined.
If it were universally acceptable that people can take their own lives, then there would be a significant possibility that the human race argumentative essay against euthanasia not exist. This is a deduction by Immanuel Kant in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant lays a strong foundation for deontology, particularly regarding professional conduct in all disciplines. According to Kant, deontology opposes any action that goes against universally accepted norms, argumentative essay against euthanasia.
Deontology explicitly outlines the universal purpose of medicine, argumentative essay against euthanasia, technology and medical personnel, which is to preserve life. For this reason, it is immoral for anyone to assist any individual to die for whatever reason. Another author, Robert Young, considers euthanasia as a rational act by qualified personnel to end suffering of a patient.
He says that it is prudent for a qualified medic to induce death or allow a patient to die to alleviate pain and suffering. For such an action to be morally acceptable, the euthanasia should not have a beneficial effect to any other person other than the patient. Thus, argumentative essay against euthanasia, euthanasia is performed for the sake of the suffering individual. He maintains that the decision to perform euthanasia should be a result of an assessment by a qualified person, argumentative essay against euthanasia.
Young also excludes cases of people who are such an invalid state that they are not in a position to decide whether to have euthanasia performed or not For a case of euthanasia to be of moral value, the patient must request for the procedure, and the medic involved must be in a position to assess the condition of the patient and ascertain that the patient indeed suffering.
Young further cites David Hume, who sought to append moral justification to suicide. He says that personal autonomy is paramount and should be respected. Thus, euthanasia should be morally acceptable when it is done within certain defined moral guidelines that involve the authority of the subject to euthanasia. David Hume dismissed religious authorities as unfair argumentative essay against euthanasia those people who committed suicide by denying them the freedom to choose not argumentative essay against euthanasia live when life becomes unbearable.
Thus, under certain circumstances, euthanasia is acceptable according to Young. It is impossible for any medic, however competent, to accurately determine the validity and extent of suffering of any individual. For this reason, I disagree with his proposition that some experts are able to determine when life becomes unbearable. Furthermore, it is the duty of the medic to prolong life regardless of the utterances and expressions of the patient.
This is justified by the fact that no one can accurately assess the mental situation of another person. There are several strengths and weaknesses in the theories pertaining euthanasia as presented by Kant, Kane and Young.
In that case, a medic observes duty without allowing emotional consequences to alter the course of his or her actions. This way, the medical practitioner is able to give service to the suffering people objectively. However, Kane has postulated that the sole duty and obligation of the medical profession is to prolong life when it s possible to do so.
He has not adequately tried to exclude euthanasia as one of the duties the medics have to perform. In addition, he has not presented facts that adequately support the theory that the duty of medical practitioners is to prolong life.
On the other hand, Kant defines actions of moral value as those that are universally acceptable. His theory succeeds in excluding actions such as euthanasia among those that are universally acceptable.
This is important since it prevents humans from engaging in morally questionable practices. He simply seeks to avoid approving actions that have moral doubt for universal practice.
Even vices such as murder are not universally condemned since there are societies where they are accepted. Primitive societies, even in developed nations, have occasionally accepted murder as an action with moral value.
It cannot be preservation of life is not a universal practice acceptable to all societies. Some societies allow people to perform euthanasia based on age or ailment, argumentative essay against euthanasia. It may be beneficial to those who are living by sparing them the ordeal of seeing a person to whom they are emotionally connected suffer. However, there is a major weakness in the definition of qualified personnel competent enough to perform euthanasia.
It is impossible to assess the effects of death since no one knows what follows once one is pronounced clinically dead. No single experiment has succeeded in establishing the experience after death. Whether the experience is painful or not euthanasia relies on an assumption. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, it is impossible for any person to determine the degree of suffering experienced by another with accuracy, argumentative essay against euthanasia. Similarly, it impossible to establish the motive of the subject to euthanasia in requesting for a mercy killing.
Thus, while the medic performing the procedure might have goodwill, he or she might be an accessory to achieve other motives other than alleviation of pain. Both authors refer to universal practices. On the other hand, Kane observes that it is the universal duty of medical practitioners to prolong life whenever it is possible.
These two theories come to a consensus that universal pratices have a moral value, argumentative essay against euthanasia. Thus if the universal duty of medical practitioners is aimed at prolonging life, it is only morally right to work towards achievement of this objective rather than act otherwise.
It is morally unacceptable to assist anyone to die according to argumentative essay against euthanasia direct analysis of the issue by Brian Kane. Similarly, Application of Kantian deontology automatically makes euthanasia immoral.
He does not append any moral value to euthanasia without the consent of the subject. This refinement involves creation of standard to assess the level of qualification of a medical practitioner to determine the degree of suffering of a potential subject of euthanasia.
Although such a standard is difficult to establish, it is a necessity for euthanasia of people with the consent of the subject to be universally accepted as a duty of medical practitioners.
My arguments against Euthanasia
, time: 6:41Against Euthanasia - Free Essay Example | blogger.com
Against Euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of causing or permitting the death of someone who may be suffering from a terminal illness that cannot be cured, often as a way to end the pain of that individual. Some people prefer the meaning of Euthanasia means the good and gentle way of death. Euthanasia should not be allowed because people need more help, it’s murder, and it is against the bible For them, the issue of cost and violation of human rights are the two most important arguments presented during euthanasia debates. Even though those who support Euthanasia argue that it helps patients die with and help in containing the overall cost of Another argument against euthanasia is that it is essentially homicide because the doctors will kill the patient even if it has been approved by the patient himself or the family of the patient. Euthanasia is not that different from murder because they both involve killing a blogger.comted Reading Time: 4 mins
No comments:
Post a Comment