Search term:. Read more. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets CSS if you are able to do so.
This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving. Ethics guide. Pro-euthanasia arguments. On this page Overview of arguments in favour of euthanasia Regulating euthanasia People have the right to die Other human rights imply a right to die Libertarian argument Medical resources Moral rules must be universalisable Euthanasia happens anyway Is death a bad thing? Page options Print this page. Arguments about death itself Is death a bad thing?
Regulating euthanasia Those in favour of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia can't be controlled by proper regulation , but they acknowledge that some problems will remain. People have the right to die Human beings have the right to die when and how they want to In The Independent, March Other human rights imply a right to die Without creating or acknowledging a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right.
The right not to be killed The right to life gives a person the right not to be killed if they don't want to be. The rights to privacy and freedom of belief include a right to die This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when to die.
It concluded that the right to life did not give any right to self-determination over life and death, since the provisions of the convention were aimed at protecting and preserving life.
English law already acknowledges that people have the right to die This argument is based on the fact that the Suicide Act made it legal for people to take their own lives. Opponents of euthanasia may disagree: The Suicide Act doesn't necessarily acknowledge a right to die; it could simply acknowledge that you can't punish someone for succeeding at suicide and that it's inappropriate to punish someone so distressed that they want to take their own life.
Libertarian argument This is a variation of the individual rights argument. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights then that action is morally acceptable In some cases, euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone involved and violates no one's rights It is therefore morally acceptable Objections to this argument Opponents attack the libertarian argument specifically by claiming that there are no cases that fit the conditions above: people sometimes think things are in their best interests that are not morally acceptable The arguments that euthanasia is intrinsically wrong fit in here people are sometimes wrong about what's in their best interests people may not realise that committing euthanasia may harm other people euthanasia may deprive both the person who dies and others of benefits euthanasia is not a private act - we cannot ignore any bad effects it may have on society in general Top.
Medical resources Euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any government or health authority. In most countries there is a shortage of health resources. Objections to this argument This proposal is an entirely pragmatic one; it says that we should allow euthanasia because it will allow more people to be happy.
Moral rules must be universalisable One of the commonly accepted principles in ethics, put forward by Immanuel Kant, is that only those ethical principles that could be accepted as a universal rule i. To put it more formally: A rule is universalisable if it can consistently be willed as a law that everyone ought to obey.
Euthanasia happens anyway Euthanasia happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly Sounds a bit like "murder happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly". When you put it like that, the argument sounds very feeble indeed. A utilitarian argument for euthanasia From a utilitarian viewpoint, justifying euthanasia is a question of showing that allowing people to have a good death, at a time of their own choosing, will make them happier than the pain from their illness, the loss of dignity and the distress of anticipating a slow, painful death.
Is death a bad thing? Why ask this question? If death is not a bad thing then many of the objections to euthanasia vanish. Why is death a bad thing? We tend to regard death as a bad thing for one or more of these reasons: because human life is intrinsically valuable because life and death are God's business with which we shouldn't interfere because most people don't want to die because it violates our autonomy in a drastic way The first two reasons form key points in the arguments against euthanasia , but only if you accept that they are true.
People don't usually want to die People are usually eager to avoid death because they value being alive, because they have many things they wish to do, and experiences they wish to have. Violation of autonomy Another reason why death is seen as a bad thing is that it's the worst possible violation of the the wishes of the person who does not want to die or, to use philosophical language, a violation of their autonomy.
In the case of someone who does want to die, this objection disappears. Being dead, versus not having been born Some people say that being dead is no different from not having been born yet, and nobody makes a fuss about the bad time they had before they were born.
See also. There are many powerful arguments for and against euthanasia. People with different beliefs may agree with many of these arguments. For example, an atheist may recognise that there are dangers in allowing euthanasia the slippery slope argument , but they might argue that an individual's right to direct their own life outweighs other good arguments.
Many religious believers are likely to have great sympathy with arguments that a person should not have to live in agony, but for them, the idea that life is sacred may outweigh other arguments, however good.
Advocates of active euthanasia typically argue that killing the patients in question is not worse than letting them die. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia often claim that patients should have the right to do what they want with their own lives.
Advocates of mercy killing argue that for patients who are in vegetative states with no prospect of recovery, letting them die prevents future needless and futile treatment efforts.
If they are suffering then killing them prevents further suffering. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that a physician assisting a terminally ill or suffering patient is merely helping the patient who wishes to die with dignity. Critics of the euthanasia typically argue that killing is always wrong, that nonvoluntary or involuntary euthanasia violates patient rights, or that physician-assisted suicide violates an obligation to do no harm.
Killing vs. Commonsense morality usually thinks that letting a person die is not as bad as killing a person. We sometimes condemn letting an innocent person die and sometimes not, but we always condemn killing an innocent person. On the other hand, we let starving people in poor countries die without condemning ourselves for failing to save them, because we think they have no right to demand we prevent their deaths.
But if someone killed a neighbor or starving people we would think that wrong. Likewise, we would condemn a healthcare professional who kills a patient. But we might accept the healthcare professional who at patient and family request withholds artificial life support to allow a suffering, terminally ill patient to die. The distinction between killing and letting die is controversial in healthcare because critics charge there is no proper moral basis for the distinction.
They say that killing the above patient brings about the same end as letting the patient die. Others object to this and claim that the nature of the act of killing is different than letting die in ways that make it morally wrong. Ordinary vs. But using a mechanical ventilator to keep a patient breathing is sometimes considered extraordinary treatment or care. Some ethicists believe letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial treatment or care is acceptable but withholding or withdrawing ordinary treatment or care is not.
This view is controversial.
0コメント