Rewriting Possibility: 85%
Ethical argument -? that people should have freedom of choice, including the right to control their own body and life (as long as they do not abuse any other person’s rights), and that the state should not create laws that prevent people being able to choose when and how they die pragmatic argument -? that euthanasia, particularly passive euthanasia, s allegedly already a widespread practice, just not one that people are willing to admit to, so it is better for government to regulate euthanasia properly instead These arguments are discussed in more detail below.
Ethical argument The ethical argument states that everyone should be able to choose when and how they want to die, and that they should be able to do so with dignity. The concept of “quality of life” is an important aspect of this argument. The ethical argument suggests that life should only continue as long as a person feels their life is worth living. For example, someone who supports the use f euthanasia or assisted suicide based on the ethical argument may believe that a person should be able to choose to end their life if they are living in intolerable pain and their quality of life is severely diminished.
Pragmatic argument The pragmatic argument states that many of the practices used in end of life care are a type of euthanasia in all but name. Another controversial practice is known as palliative sedation. This is where a person who is experiencing extreme suffering, for which there is no effective treatment, is put to sleep using sedative medication. Palliative sedation is often used to treat burns cities who are expected to die. While palliative sedation is not directly carried out for the purpose of ending lives, many of the sedatives used carry a risk of speeding up death.
Therefore, it could be argued that palliative sedation is a type of active euthanasia. The pragmatic argument is that if euthanasia in these forms is being carried out anyway, society might as well legalese it and ensure that it is properly regulated. It should be stressed, however, that the above interpretations Of palliative sedation are very controversial and are not accepted by most doctors, nurses and palliative are specialists.
Arguments against euthanasia and assisted suicide religious argument -for example, many people believe that only God has the right to end a human life ‘slippery slope’ argument – this is based on the concern that legalizing euthanasia could lead to significant unintended changes in our healthcare system and society at large that we would later come to regret medical ethics argument – that asking doctors, nurses or any other healthcare professional to carry out euthanasia or assist in a suicide would be a violation of fundamental medical ethics These arguments are described in more detail below.
Religious argument The most common religious argument is that human beings are the sacred creation of God, so human life is, by extension, sacred. This is known as the “sanctity of life”. Only God should choose when a human life ends, so committing an act of euthanasia Or assisting in suicide is acting against the will of God and is sinful. This belief – or variations of it – is shared by many members of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths, although some individuals may personally feel that there are occasions when quality of life becomes more important than sanctity of life. The issue is more complex in Hinduism and Buddhism.
Scholars from both faiths have argued that euthanasia and assisted suicide are ethically acceptable acts in some circumstances, but these views do not have universal support among Hindus and Buddhists. Some non-religious people may also have similar beliefs based on the view that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide “devalues” life. ‘Slippery slope’ argument The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line s crossed that should never have been crossed, and a dangerous precedent has been set.
The concern is that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia. Legalized voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to a wide range of unforeseen consequences, such as the following: Very ill people who need constant care, or people with severe disabilities, may feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not a burden to their family. Legalizing euthanasia may discourage research into palliative reattempts, and possibly prevent cures for people with terminal illnesses being found.
Occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about a person’s diagnosis and outlook, and the person may choose euthanasia after being wrongly told that they have a terminal condition. Medical ethics argument The medical ethics argument, which is similar to the “slippery slope” argument, states that legalizing euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which, in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, is: “A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to aspect human life”.
Asking doctors to abandon their obligation to preserve human life could damage the doctor-patient relationship. Hastening death on a regular basis could become a routine administrative task for doctors, leading to a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people. In turn, people with complex health needs or severe disabilities could become distrustful of their doctors efforts and intentions. They may think that their doctor would rather “kill them off’ than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case.