Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Sanctity of Life Argument Against Euthanasia
Some of the most difficult ethical questions of our age concern the definition of life -- when it begins, what it means, when and how it should end. Many of the arguments surrounding these questions concern the right of others to end someone's life. This problem lies at the heart of debates about abortion, capital punishment, and even animal testing. It is particularly relevant to the controversy surrounding euthanasia. Does anyone have the right to end another's life, even to relieve suffering or as a result of the express wish of the sufferer?
Central to the argument against euthanasia is the concept of the "sanctity of innocent human life." James Rachels breaks down the components of this concept in his chapter on the Sanctity of Life. He points out that, while...
Rachels suggests a middle ground by looking at the difference between being alive and having a life. For Rachels, merely being alive does not necessarily imply sanctity of life. Rather, in order for a life to be considered sacred in the sense that it must be protected, that life must be consciously valued by the being living it, and must comprise memories of the past and hopes for the future. It is obvious that human life qualifies in this sense, but so does some animal life. Rachels points out rhesus monkeys and baboons as examples, but the same case could be made for dogs, cats, dolphins, and many others. Rachels suggests that the value and sanctity of a life be determined by the level to which that life is valued and consciously pursued by the one living it.
This view of the sanctity of life may work for arguments about animal testing, for instance. But it becomes very murky when applied to euthanasia. For instance, if someone once was a being that valued its own life and made plans for itself, but an accident altered this person to the point where they…
There are many other related reasons for arguing against euthanasia and its acceptance or legalization. One is that it contradicts the medical code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, which, "…expressly forbids the giving of deadly medicine to anyone who asks" (Cauthen). The argument that euthenasia is an act of compassion and mercy can also be contradicted. There are many drugs available today that can be used to control pain;
It is important to realize that this perspective is still highly prevalent in many countries, and that even the notion of euthanasia could be hugely offensive to some people, especially in sensitive situations such as end-of-life discussion. While this argument is admittedly built on subjective individual views of morality, it is still a very valid ethical view (Paterson 2003). Other ethicists take a more moderate, middle view of the issue,
Euthanasia In addition to racism, political and philosophical ideologies, and abortion, euthanasia is one of the foremost issues that divide people in the United States and the rest of the world. Some deem euthanasia as mercy killing. Others simply call it, killing. It is the taking of one's own life when a medical condition or illness becomes unbearable in terms of physical or emotional manifestations. Euthanasia is also called Physician's Assisted
EUTHANASIA The word Euthanasia has been the cause of much debate about its legality and whether such a practice is even ethical or not. The anti-argument for this cause has mostly been raised from more controversial background, while the pro argument has come up from the liberal camp. The reason for such ferocity in the debate has been the resultant of the lack of understanding of the real meaning of
Euthanasia There can be little doubt that most humans cherish life to the extent that they would choose immortality in a heartbeat, if that option was ever made available. However, while this observation may undoubtedly be true, there is an unstated qualification. And, that is, that humans will choose life only as long as it is imbued with dignity and vitality. In fact, the importance of this qualification is reflected in
The philosophy for example recognizes that more than one person is involved in the euthanasia process. The person in most physical distress is the one afflicted with illness and requiring euthanasia as a solution. What deontology does not recognize is the suffering of family members. Consequentialism also considers the suffering of family members, who are emotionally and mentally distressed by observing the long-term suffering of the ill person. They