Homogenoues Essay, Research Paper

Essay #1

When discussing the issue of euthanasia, one could make many arguments for either side of the issue. Euthanasia can be defined by the book as “mercy killing” (31). There is a lot of terminology that has to be deciphered when discussing this issue. There is voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary active or passive euthanasia. So many arguments are made for both sides that are very good, but they can be reputed. When looking at the quote, “Active voluntary euthanasia is wrongful killing”, one could make a strong argument for this claim on both sides.

I feel that this quote is wrong. When defining active voluntary euthanasia, you have to look at what it is calling for. Active euthanasia takes account for a drug(or whatever is being used) supplied by a doctor(or someone who can give it to you). Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient requests that he wants to die by the drug. This whole issue involves the patient not being forced to take himself/herself, making an autonomous decision. How can somebody say that it is wrongful killing if the patient wants to die. I feel that if one is dying and has to suffer to live each day, why would somebody call this wrongful killing if he gets injected by a drug to take his life. Take the three points in the Paradigm Case of Justified Active Euthanasia. The first point is voluntariness which means the patient is not forced, has a sound mind, and has adequate information. When a person has adequate information with a sound mind, and is not forced, why would someone say that it is wrongful killing when that person wants to voluntarily die. The second point is terminality which means how terminal is the disease(are you going to die soon). When you look at this point, I feel that if the person has a very bad disease, why would it be wrongful if the person does not want to live with this disease that will probably kill that person soon. The third point agony. How much agony will the person have that person stays alive. What type of therapy is there, if any. Even if there is therapy, will that person still live in agony. Is it wrongful for a person to take his own life if he is living in agony everyday? I don’t feel that it is wrongful or immoral to take a life if the patient is living in agony or is hopeless by every means.

I feel that if the person is autonomous and does not want to live how he/she is living, why is it wrongful for him to take his life by using a drug or other cause. Look at the movie we watched in class about the active guy who got a very bad disease that he couldn’t even be active. He could live independently ever again, it hurt for him to eat. It is so apparent that he was suffering to the fullest. He wanted to die so he did not have to suffer any longer. He called Dr. Kevorkian and the doctor helped him die by giving him a drug. It was clear that he had adequate information, he just wanted to stop suffering. How can someone not think this is an act of mercy? Is it because he took his own life by a drug or what. I feel that this is a very good cause to take yourself because he did not want to live. He had no desire to live. Why would this be called wrongful killing if he apparently made an autonomous decision to take himself because of his major sufferings to get by each and every day.

Essay #2

The question of immorality takes place when you take in account the religious side of euthanasia. Some people are very religious and take religion into consideration when talking about this issue. The What God Forbids argument brings into consideration the view of God and what he would want. One would say that if God does not permit active euthanasia, then it is not proper. “God forbids it by the authority of either Scripture or church tradition”(51); is this meant to be taken that active euthanasia is looked down upon by God and the church. Religious people think that this issue is obvious and that active euthanasia should not be used. Looking deeper into the issue, we must consider the Sixth Commandment which can be translated “Thou shalt not murder”. This quote can not be justified with ease. You look at the word murder, which means wrongful killing. There could be many interpretations of this word that could make the point that it was not wrongful to kill so therefore it is moral. The Sixth Commandment is not a real strong case for the God Forbids argument because you can not say that euthanasia is wrong when considering this amendment.

I do not think that the God Forbids argument makes a strong enough case to prohibit active euthanasia. Although I am Catholic and believe in God, I do not really practice religion that often. The confidence of what God says should be done is not that affirmative. I think if God saw a person that could not even eat, move, etc… He would probably want to put that person out of misery. I don’t think he would say that it was murder if that person wanted to use euthanasia to take his life. I don’t feel that church or Scriptures can justify that God forbids the use of active euthanasia. I also feel that people should not be brain washed by what was written so many years ago about an issue that has been taking many new forms in recent decades. I feel that it is up to the dying person to decide whether he wants to participate in active euthanasia.

Essay #3

When one wants to talk about legalization of active euthanasia, one could the Right to Liberty Argument. This argument basically says it all in what it is called. This argument calls for the dying person right to choose. The dying patient should be free to choose if he wants to take part in euthanasia or not to take part to his personal liberty. The argument suggests that life belongs to that particular individual so he should have the right to decide for himself. It is a private issue because it is the individual that is dying so it should be up to that individual to act the way he wants.

The Argument from Unexpected Cures can not be looked past either. This argument looks at the fact that the doctor can not make the judgement that the dying patient is hopeless. There have been cases that the patient was claimed hopeless and some how survived. It is really hard to make a judgement on somebody because one could say that there is always hope of survival. This arguments takes in consideration for an unexpected cure of a disease for a particular patient and therefore active euthanasia should not be used. When speaking of morality, this argument suggests that immoral because we cannot decipher if the patient is really hopeless.

I feel that the Right to Liberty Argument can be used to rebut the Argument from Unexpected Cures because in the Right to Liberty Argument it states that if a dying person wants to pursue active euthanasia, it is his own wish. I don’t think the Argument from Unexpected Cures is a sound enough argument to pursued a dying individual on his decision to take part in active euthanasia. The Unexpected Cures goes with out saying that it will be unexpected that there will be a cure, basically playing very high odds for staying alive. I feel that it is a right to liberty for an individual to say that he wants to use active euthanasia even though there might be an unexpected cure.