Euthansia essay - Seth Braunstein Sean Stapleton FWS: The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Seth Braunstein Sean Stapleton FWS: The Ethics of Killing Legalized Euthanasia: A Merciful Death or a Dangerous Precedent For many years there has been a debate over whether or not euthanasia should be legalized. Many people feel that it’s important for euthanasia to be a tangible option for people who are experiencing severe pain and suffering with no chance of recovery. However, there are many others who believe practically, that legalizing euthanasia could result in gross abuse. In this essay, I will argue that euthanasia is, in limited circumstances permissible, but because of many practical objections, I do not believe it would be safe for any society to actually legalize euthanasia. In this paper I will first state and analyze opinions from a few different philosophers on the differences and similarities between passive and active euthanasia. I will then touch on why people theoretically believe that legalizing euthanasia could offer a good overall alternative. I will then present the main argument in my essay, explaining an important objection to legalizing euthanasia and point out the negative impacts and results that passing such a law would cause. There are two different types of euthanasia known as passive and active euthanasia. In active euthanasia, the person being euthanized would be given a painless lethal injection to end their life. In passive euthanasia, a person would simply not be given life sustaining treatment and food and would be left to die to the point where they would be left alone to die. The philosopher Rachels strongly believes that there is no morally relevant difference between killing (active euthanasia) and letting die (passive
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
euthanasia). During passive euthanasia, a person potentially could suffer for weeks or months before dying, whereas active euthanasia would be a painless death. Rachels’ main point is that, as a society, we permit ‘letting die’ and killing is of the same moral equivalence. Therefore, there is no moral difference between killing and letting die, and they should not be treated differently. (Rachels) On the other hand, the philosopher Callahan claims that the relevance for any death is the actual cause of why the person loses their life. If someone lets a person die of a disease, then it is the disease that is actually responsible for the killing rather than the person who didn’t prevent it. Callahan believes that, when a person is actively euthanized, its entirely different then letting them die because it is a person who is actually doing the killing and is therefore responsible. (Callahan) Philosopher Peter Singer completely opposes Callahan’s views and he claims
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

Euthansia essay - Seth Braunstein Sean Stapleton FWS: The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online