into killers could corrupt the medical system and cause a decline in the quality of medical care (Satris, 1998, pp. 281 83).
Gay WilliamsÆ nature argument centers on the body and its defense mechanisms. "In our daily lives we exercise the caution and care necessary to protect ourselves. Our bodies are similarly structured for survival right down to the molecular level." Euthanasia runs counter to every natural inclination of our bodies and minds. "It is literally acting against nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily survival." Furthermore, euthanasia harms human dignity because it runs counter to the fundamental human goal of survival. "Thus, euthanasia denies our basic human character and requires that we regard ourselves or others as something less than fully human" (Satris, 1998, p. 281).
Gay WilliamsÆ argument from self interest rests on human fallibility. Yes, medicine has come a long way in the 20th century, but doctors still make mistakes. A patient may believe that he or she is dying as the result of a mistaken diagnosis or a mistaken prognosis. Euthanasia in such a situation would result in needless death. "Death is final and the chance of error too great to approve the practice of euthanasia" (Satris, 1998, p. 282).
Moreover, even if the diagnosis or prognosis is correct, the possibility of a medical breakthrough remains. Medical science reports numerous instances of unexplained recoveries that can only be described as "miraculous." Such hope, no matter how slim, outweighs the irreversible outcome of euthanasia (Satris, 1998, p. 282). Finally, the key to any patientÆs recovery is the will to live. The option of euthanasia offers an easy way out, which weakens the will to survive. Patients may be motivated by concern for the sufferi
...