Man is a bubble, and all the world is a storm.
There are many critics who oppose the idea of mercy killing for an array of reasons and I plan to refute their objections as best as I can. Many detractors of euthanasia insinuate that it is against the natural law of god to perform euthanasia because he is our creator and we must follow the path to heaven we are given.
I do not agree with this theory for many reasons. First, if god chooses our path, why would he have his creations experience pain? God, I understand, wants his followers to be content and lead a just existence.
Is it fair for god to make us suffer just to show our faith to a deity none of us have ever witnessed? It is unreasonable to expect an individual to remain in pain for the sole reason of following a path that god has bestowed upon him or her; for at this time of suffering is when it is hardest to believe that such a god would exist and inflict such agony to his creation.
It is also irrational to believe that we should Sorry, but full essay samples are available only for registered users Choose a Membership Plan have to suffer just to satisfy our creator. Many religions do not believe in the god of the catholic faith.
Atheists do not believe that a god even exists.
Whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs is not the question, but rather is it justified for atheists to perform euthanasia? Should atheists have the legal right of euthanasia and followers of god be excluded from this right?
This leads me to consider that following in the path of god only inhibits your true soul to act within your own set of morals and dignity for fear of displeasing your maker. Atheists, conversely, can lead a more just life because they do not set upon themselves the same confines that hinder followers of god.
In the case of euthanasia, an atheist would be permitted to follow his will while a catholic would be advised to follow the will of god. Those who are not allowed to control their own fate are led down a path of injustice caused by their belief of god. It would also be unjust to force an atheist to follow natural law because it is not of his belief system.
Yet, we cannot impose separate laws to each class based on their belief system. To treat each class or religious group differently would be a universal injustice.
God, to the best of my knowledge, created everyone to be equal. In here lies the paradox of Catholicism. This injustice would cause the teachings of god to be contradictory to the natural belief system of Catholicism.
Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the state to allow a person of will to control their fate and not put your faith in the will of natural law.
An argument that is also brought up against euthanasia is the provisos of its policy. Who will be permitted to die and where do we draw the line? Predominantly, will euthanasia cause a decline in society?
This is quite an easy problem to elucidate. To begin with, a person is born into this world with autonomous morals, not from society, but from his will.
From this will comes the value of freedom and selecting ones ends. Society must respect your will and allow you to decide your fate.
If society tries to rule the will of a person, they subsequently choose to eradicate his categorical imperative and interfere with the intrinsic moral values that individuals justly deserve. This would be unjustified for the individual and for the state as well.
Therefore, we must respect the decision of individuals when they decide that euthanasia would be in their best interest. Yet, there should be a fine line drawn by the state on when euthanasia should be permissible. A law should state that euthanasia could be carried out on patients where death is imminent.
It should also be permissible to those who are suffering physically or mentally, with no hope of recovery or rehabilitation. If a patient can recover from their malady without using extreme measures that will produce additional pain as a result of his rehabilitation nor without a chance of failure in their recovery, euthanasia can be deemed impermissible and therefore not allowed to be carried out by the patient or state.
It should be the job of the state and state appointed physician to decide on who can be permitted to die by active means and deem it illegal if the state does not give permission to have a patient put to death. It is illogical to believe that euthanasia will cause a corrosion of morality in society.
An individual will have the option to pass on only if it falls within the realm of its legality. Society will be there to make sure it is carried out legally while not meddling with the moral values of the individual.
Capital punishment has been required in parts of our society to deter certain crimes such as murder in the first degree, murder of a cop, and other odious crimes that are set to legislative law.Losing the War.
Man is a bubble, and all the world is a stormJeremy Taylor, Holy Dying () My father owned a gorgeous porcelain tiger about half the size of a house cat. Contrarily, Pro-euthanasia prove its justification based on utilitarianism and flaws of approach of slippery slope, overwhelming position of natural right and fallacy of Hippocratic Oath, and the notion of euthanasia as extension of palliative care with eudemonic conception.
Type one is active euthanasia; active euthanasia is, “the practice of injecting a patient with a lethal dose of medication with the primary intention of ending a patient’s life, at the patient’s request” (pfmlures.com, ).
Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July ) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of pfmlures.com specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective.
Utilitarian Justification of Euthanasia This Essay Utilitarian Justification of Euthanasia and other 64,+ term papers, college essay examples and free essays are available now on pfmlures.com Autor: review • November 30, • Essay • Words (2 Pages) • Views4/4(1). Justification of Assisted Suicide Essay.
A. Pages Words This is just a sample.
To get a unique essay. This is the main focus of assisted suicide and the justification of the situation has been at debate for a long time. What is Assisted Suicide? Assisted suicide is also known as euthanasia and is defined by dictionary.