Pro-Euthanasia

For example, according to James Rachels, the most common argument in support of euthanasia is one that we may call ‘the argument from mercy’. It is an exceptionally simple argument, at least in its main idea, which makes one uncomplicated point. Terminally ill patients sometimes suffer pain so horrible that it can hardly be comprehended by those who have not actually experienced it. Their suffering can be so terrible that we do not like even to read about it or think about it; we recoil even from its description. The argument from mercy says: euthanasia is justified because it puts an end to that. (Rachels, p. 457) Rachels continues with his discourse on the morality of euthanasia wherein he identifies other individuals who have suffered interminably, from all appearances for no reason at all. The argument he presents is a philosophical one and has its basis in utilitarianism, w

Along the same lines, one J. Gay-Williams writes an essay on the wrongfulness of euthanasia wherein he states-my impression is that euthanasia, the idea, if not the practice, is slowly gaining acceptance within our society. Cynics might attribute this to an increasing tendency to devalue human life, but I do not believe that this is the major factor. The acceptance is much more likely to be the result of unthinking sympathy and benevolence. Well publicized, tragic stories like that of Karen Quinlan elicit from us deep feelings of compassion. We think to ourselves, “ she and the family would be better off if she were dead.” It is an easy step from very human response to the view that if someone (and others) would be better off dead, than it must be all right to kill that person. Although I respect the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe the conclusion is wrong. I want to show that euthanasia is wrong. It is inherently wrong, but it is also judged from the standpoints of self-interest and of practical effects. (Gay-William, p. 221-222) It appears that the Karen Ann Quinlan case is a pivotal one within the discussion of euthanasia. In my view, we’re dealing with some very fundamental and sensitive philosophical concepts, which like creationism versus evolutionism shall continue to rage, even in the 21st Century - and even when a time when back in 1921 during the now famous “Scopes trial.” We don’t seem to be able to come to unanimous grips with this elusive problem, but, the philosophers continue to try. Gay-Williams bases his argument from nature. He states that every human being has a natural inclination to continue living. Our reflexes and responses fit us to fight attackers, flee wild animals, and dodge out of the way of trucks. 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 does violence to this natural goal of survival. It is literally acting against natur

Some topics in this essay:
Ann Quinlan, James Rachels, Medial Association, Oberlin College, Karen Quinlan, , Critics Quinlan, Elizabeth Bouvia, California Constitutions, Supreme Court, privacy rights, karen ann quinlan, ann quinlan, karen ann, terminally ill, death dying, die unethical, euthanasia violence, “right die”, practical effects, pro euthanasia,