What serious social and religious issues does Euthanasia raise?
...mily members and so might consider having euthanasia administered to them. Therefore, if the person falls ill then he might consent for euthanasia because he has been pressured by his relatives into his life. ‘Slippery slope’ arguments, however, are empirical arguments, that is to say that, while they are underpinned by principles, they do not depend on these principles for their validity. Doctors have difficult decisions to make concerning euthanasia. Performing euthanasia would involve a violation of the principle, which is most pivotal to the Hippocratic Oath, which is that, ‘above all no doctor should do no harm’. This objection, however, is in danger of being misleading; since, if a patients’ desire to act according to his or her conscience in decisions at the end of life is frustrated then the patient is harmed. Therefore, the doctor must change his consideration from doing no harm to a combination of the attempt to do the least amount of harm and deciding which parties are most vulnerable and which stand most in need of the doctor’s protection and care. Autonomy is defined as the patients’ freedom to make decisions about his or her treatment, therefore, if a patient is treated against his or her will, that patient has been harmed according to the law and is comparable to assault. A person who is at death’s door is able to refuse treatment even if this leads to his or her’s death. If a doctor wants to save a patient who refuses treatment’s life, he must violate the Hippocratic tradition. Respect for the concept of autonomy requires that the patient’s wish for treatment or non-treatment must be respected. When it is possible to respect these wishes, and there is a failure to do so, the patient has been harmed, which violates the Hippocratic Oath. ...