Rewriting Possibility: 85%
The words “morally correct” and “supervision” in the claim are not defined clearly here which may create misunderstanding of the argument. When we say something is “Morally correct” it is a general acceptance towards a certain idea. For A to be more morally correct compare to B, A takes into account larger scope of considerations. Killing is often referred as an immoral act, which an equal sign has been drawn to Euthanasia. As people regard them same as killing, they are therefore regarded as immoral.
However, Euthanasia ay be voluntary when people rather be dead than being to tortured by extreme illness. By disregarding his/her right to die can be immoral(moral). The morality is determined through balance of these arguments, which can be ambiguous. Supervision in this case may be the key to solving the ambiguity of the morality problem. However, supervision itself is too broad to be discussed. For instance by whom should Euthanasia be supervised under to be independent and safe? Doctors? Government? Medical industry?… Etc. To what extent of supervision is considered to be appropriate?
If too harsh, ender Euthanasia’s implementation. Too weak may lead to deliberate murder to patients. Why do you hold this opinion? What are your main reasons for thing this way? Three crucial reasons include: First, it is more economic wise for Euthanasia to exist, as it saves huge amount of medical cost on keeping terminal illness patients alive. Second, it was demand by many voluntarily, as suffering extreme illness is more painful than death. Lastly, If there is no harm to others, other than the patient or/ and the patients’ relatives, people should not interfere.
Are these main claims easy to understand? Do they rely on common knowledge? Or are they unusual and rely on implicit ideas or background? The first claim, that it is economic wise may not be direct and understandable through common sense. As some people may regard human as precious resource of society that benefit the economy, however, most patient who receive Euthanasia are often not far from death and incapable of returning to workforce. They are rather regarded as burden of society by keeping them alive meaninglessly.
Second claim is straightforward that people deserve Euthanasia as they deserve normal goods and services, where people benefit room it and demand it should not be seen as an immoral act. Third claim is easy to understand, as if you do not want a stranger have a say on whether killing yourself for relief from torture of illness is bad and should be prohibited. What supporting evidence would/could you give for these views? For first claim, it is obvious that keeping a living person and without one, keeping a living person require more expenses. This is a simple concept that can be explain through simple economic and calculation.
For second claim, putting yourself into a situation where two options left, live painfully for short term ND follow by death(most likely) or for the rest of your life, or die now without suffering illness and pain. Statistic shows most people suggest the latter option, therefore Euthanasia is demand by people. For third claim, Third claim is evidenced by the fact that in most cases of Euthanasia, it is demand by relatives or patient for the purpose of relief, which does not harm anyone else but simply a relief for patient and comfort for relatives. Do you think your reasons are good ones?
Could you make your argument stronger? Yes, I think the reasons are good and it is possible to enhance the arguments. This can be done through increasing reasons for human rights of dying, giving practical examples such as freeing up scarce health resources allowing further medical research.