{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Final Paper - In his article Regan argues that sometimes...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
J. David Velleman writes about the institutional right to die in his article, “Against the Right to Die.” Velleman argues against the institution right to die; however, he makes it clear that he is “far from an all-things-considered judgment.” He begins by addressing consequentialist worries regarding euthanasia. One of these is a mistaken request to die because of people’s inability to make the decision well. In regards to this, Regan retorts that he will assume that people are infallible for the sake of his argument. He also assumes indiscriminate killing and abuse by doctors will not be a worry. While all of these consequentialist worries may in fact be potential worries, Regan chooses to assume they are not a worry and argue that an institutional right to die is still immoral and doesn’t make for good policy.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: In his article, Regan argues that sometimes giving someone the option may not be in their best interest. New options make it impossible to obtain the status quo without having to choose it. For example, an unwanted party invitation which you receive gives you knew options you previously would not have had. Your best option now is to attend the party, as you can no longer avoid the person by default. While staying away by default was your best option, after receiving the invitation you are no longer able to do this. Therefore, giving people options is not always better than not having the option. I agree with the fact that options are not always the best and that providing the option to Euthanasia...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}