Euthanasia
...nstance, the physician performs the death-causing act after determining that the patient indeed wishes to end his or her life. But who gets to decide matters over human life? This is the root of the problem, since the problem revolves around who gets to be the authority of human life. In cases of mercy killing, there are definitely humane grounds on which we could justify euthanasia. This is especially the case when there is a terminally ill adult who suffers from an incurable and painful disease. Surely it makes moral sense to avoid this patient’s debilitating pain. In cases such as these, the decision to engage in euthanasia is legitimate. The problem is that euthanasia is not always administered in this context. There appears to be a slippery slope in this issue. There might be a certain route that is taken from euthanasia for terminally ill adults to euthanasia for patients who cannot give consent. For instance, who decides for people who are unconscious, demented, and mentally ill? How about children? Precautions have to be made because there is a process where euthanasia might apply to inappropriate situations. It is also worrisome when there is non-voluntary euthanasia. It is a serious situation when patients who are no longer competent are given euthanasia even though they could not have freely or explicitly requested it. This is the biggest danger in this issue. Overall, the question is not necessarily about whether intervention is right for this or that particular patient. In any given case it may be the ethical thing to do. So should we broadly legalize euthanasia? Let us agree that most of the patients interested in euthanasia need to be suffering horrific pain. Depression, hopelessness, and psychological distress should never be the primary factors in motivating euthanasia. Euthanasia In “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”, J. Gay-Williams argues that euthanasia is inherently wrong and that “it is also wrong judged from the standpoints of self-interest and of practical effects.” (Williams) He bases one of his arguments on nature, saying that “Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living.” (Williams) In this context, he believes that euthanasia is a universal wrong. In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels argues that “if it has been decided that euthanasia – even passive euthanasia – is desirable in a given case, it has also been decided that in this instance death is no greater an evil than the patient’s continued existence. And if this is true, the usual reason for not wanting to be the cause of someone’s death simply does not apply.” (Rachels) In this way, we can see where euthanasia could be justified in certain contexts. In “Voluntary Active Euthanasia”, Dan Brock argues that there are two basic values which legitimize euthanasia. These values are individual self-determination and individual well-being. He also contends that euthanasia is not incompatible with the `moral centre’ of medicine. (Brock) There are certain reasons which justify the taking of life in certain circumstances. In “The Right to Die”, Patrick Nowell-Smith looks at how society perceives death. He argues that society needs to change its whole attitude toward death and dying. He writes that “instead of sweeping it under the carpet, we must learn again to accept it as our forefathers did, as not only the inevitable, but the natural end to earthly life.” (Nowell-Smith) In this way, we see that our view of death also has to undergo an examination if we are going to determine the pros and cons of euthanasia. The debate over voluntary euthanasia is a complicated one. In voluntary euthanasia, for instance, the physician p...