Cecil McIver presents a strong case advocating the practice of Euthanasia. His views are highly regarded because of his fifty years experience in practicing medicine. In McIver’s position that, “Morality and legality are, or should be, closely coupled. Morality should provide the theoretical basis for our concepts of right and wrong, and the legal system should codify, police, and enforce our moral conclusions…However, when law is based on sectarian opinions, it should accommodate differences in opinion.�

� McIver’s position is true, but the reason why the law does not accommodate differences in opinion is that no law is based on sectarian opinions only. McIver is contradicting himself in some respects. Religion does have an impact laws, and is the basis of many peoples’ morals. McIver’s argument criticizes religion. His view is that religion blinds many of us from reason. The process of reason is seeing and processing the rationality of certain situations with one’s own values and beliefs. People are not blinded by religion; they respect it and follow their beliefs.

An argument McIver tries to refute for not allowing assisted suicide is that it would be impossible to regulate. McIver states that the “…regulations governing assistance in dying should be made simple for two reasons: Firstly, the dying patient had enough problems to deal with without adding to them unnecessarily. Secondly, complicated and burdensome controls are all too often self-defeating.” Indeed if Euthanasia were to become legal, the regulations would be a hassle. However, what McIver fails to cover is the fact that it wou

Some topics in this essay:
Nazi Germany, Cecil McIver, , Indeed Euthanasia, University Leipzig, Karl Binding, Worthy Life”, Hoche MD, compassion giving, based sectarian opinions, true compassion giving, euthanasia legalized, accommodate differences, sectarian opinions, true compassion, based sectarian, law based sectarian, argument euthanasia, mciver fails, mciver’s position, law based,