Voluntary active euthanasia
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Voluntary active euthanasia is a topic that raises many difficult moral questions. After considering arguments for and against this practice, however, it can be shown that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible--so long as it meets the terms as defined below. It is permissible because the autonomy of the individual allows him or her to decide whether extreme pain and suffering is a condition that he or she wishes to endure. But, since the practice involves both the individual who will die, and the person who ends that individual's life, it is necessary to consider the moral position of both parties. In the case of voluntary active euthanasia, the autonomy of the individual takes precedence over the usually morally impermissible act of taking another person's life. In addition, it must be asked whether the practice necessarily lends itself to abuses that could not be controlled. If this were the case, the social impact of the practice would render it morally impermissible, even if, in ideal cases, it was morally permissible. Arguments for and against the moral permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia are considered. For the most part, the objections to the practice ignore the important question of human autonomy, while the arguments in favor of the practice are based primarily on this criterion. Once autonomy is given the central position, and the avoidance of pain and suffering is shown to be a rational option, voluntary active euthanasia is shown t
. . .
on to voluntary active euthanasia is that there is no way of ensuring that consent is voluntary. As this argument goes, individuals who are drugged, or in extreme pain, for most of the time, cannot be judged competent to make such decisions. This is a difficult point, but it does not apply to those who have made the decision prior to reaching this point. An individual who has cancer could easily decide, long before reaching a state of unbearable pain, or having his faculties limited by drugs, that he wishes to be able to state at which point he wants to end his life.
Another common objection is that there is "always the possibility of mistaken diagnosis, a new cure, or spontaneous remission." But, the patient who makes the decision to have his own life ended is not likely to disregard these possibilities. They are, at best, very slim chances. But this does not mean that they would be ignored. It does mean, however, that the possibilities would be weighed against the likelihood that no such events will come to pass--as is usually the case--and the certainty that, in the absence of such miracles, extreme suffering would ensue.
Another strong argument against voluntary active euthanasia is that it places an undue burden o
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
, Gradually Gay-Williams, According Bok, active euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia, voluntary active, CA Wadsworth, Vincent Barry, Text Readings, morally impermissible, extreme pain, morally permissible, Sissela Bok, Applying Ethics, Indianapolis Hackett, NY Anchor, belmont ca wadsworth, autonomy individual, wadsworth 1996, individual makes, applying ethics, text readings, ethics text readings, applying ethics text, ca wadsworth 1996,
Approximate Word count = 1907
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Voluntary active euthanasia
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
