And with good reason: Any argument on the subject usually devolves into a series of complex, abstract questions about morality and freedom of choice and so on.
Arguments for voluntary euthanasia 1. Accordingly, democratic societies can make laws to prohibit murder, assault and theft, but should not make laws to prohibit sex before marriage, gay marriage, religious belief, or voluntary euthanasia.
This is because people who practise the latter are not harming other people. The onus is thus on those opposed to euthanasia to substantiate why voluntary euthanasia is fundamentally flawed. The concept of individualism is fundamental to democratic political theory. In a democratic society, individualism posits that latitude be given to individuals to behave as they wish, and to develop and satisfy their interests.
To deny a person the right to live his or her life as he or she wishes implies that each individual does not know what is best for himself or herself. That is, only those who are mentally competent, which excludes people with dementia and those with clinical depression while these conditions persistwould be able to make a well-informed decision about voluntary euthanasia.
Individuals can make important decisions about their bodies when they are young, for example, they can choose to participate in dangerous sporting activities. In many jurisdictions, women can choose to have an abortion. Perversely, as voluntary euthanasia is illegal in most jurisdictions, it would seem that somewhere between the ages of twenty when some women might have an abortion and seventy the age where some may be terminally ill or have a poor quality of life women lose legal control of their bodies.
The clergy, the most vocal opponents of voluntary euthanasia, have imposed their values on other individuals through their strident opposition to a right to die for everybody.
However, they would be unlikely to entertain a reciprocal arrangement that impinged on their individual freedoms.
In the spirit of Voltaire, the clergy and other euthanasia opponents most certainly can remonstrate with people requesting euthanasia to change their minds, but they ought not be able to compel them by legislative fiat in a democracy. Voluntary euthanasia is morally just precisely because it is voluntary.
To be denied the right to make this decision is a blight on modern democracy. In English speaking countries, the euthanasia cause reached legal prominence in the early s. In explaining her situation, she questioned that if she cannot give consent to her own death, then whose body is it?
Sue and Bob reflected what most people think: How could anybody, or any government, deny that simple fact? However, when it comes to public policy, and a choice of what people want for themselves rather than others in the populationpopular support for a policy is a strong political argument in its favour.
The same polls show that voluntary euthanasia is opposed by less than one in six Australians. The other is to keep the status quo, but this limits options of a peaceful death to those with the requisite information, capital and means. Even in unregulated jurisdictions, many such people, including those who are not terminally ill, are already finding a way to achieve a peaceful death.
There are several voluntary euthanasia advocacy organisations in Australia. Legislative reform is the main objective of the state and territory based Dying with Dignity organisations, which do an important job.
Their work is complemented by organisations such as Go Gentle Australia, which was created in to spark a national conversation about voluntary euthanasia laws. That is why so many support him. People, including mainly elderly people in Australia and overseas, need information on end-of-life drugs now and cannot wait for politicians to legislate for voluntary euthanasia.
It is important to note that committing suicide is legal in most jurisdictions. Perversely, voluntarily gaining assistance with suicide is mostly illegal.
Nonetheless, some Australian doctors have admitted to assisting with voluntary euthanasia. Yet no legal action has been taken against Dr Syme and nor should it be. He acted in the best interests of his patient.Basic Arguments in favour of Euthanasia.
Rights: Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die. Mercy: It is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress. Euthanasia Should be Legalized California, Oregon, Vermont, Montana, and Washington are current states that have chosen to legalize the option of euthanasia, which is a requested assisted suicide from the patient, or the caretaker of the patient, to the doctor.
Argument in Favor of Euthanasia Essay. Length: words (6 double-spaced pages) Rating: Better Essays. Euthanasia is one of society's most widely and hotly debated moral issues. It has pained and exhausted the courts for entirely too long, questioning the ethics and morality of the issue.
The issue of his article is legalizing. Basic Arguments About Euthanasia. Where health resources are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses.
and it's only relevant to people who accept that passive euthanasia is sometimes right. The argument says that there is no real difference between passive.
Jun 01, · In the end, they fear, people will be expected to commit euthanasia as soon as they become an unreasonable burden on society. Argument in Favor of Euthanasia Essay; Argument in Favor of Euthanasia Essay. Words 8 Pages. Essay Argument For Legalizing Euthanasia Words | 12 Pages.
assisted suicide (the Hemlock Society, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society). The issue became media frenzy in the late s with the efforts of Dr. Jack Kevorkian and others and.