With the issue of euthanasia, I was also not sure with my standings, but I supported its cause ultimately. In my statement of belief paper, I wrote that:
I am not confident, but I think euthanasia is morally permissible and that there is no moral difference between physician assisted suicide and physician administered euthanasia. I believe that the patient has the right to choose whether he or she wants to live and in the case of euthanasia, the physician is making a medical, moral, and also, a difficult decision to end suffering for the patient, which I think is justified.
Interestingly, my belief stands although my scope for its permissibility has shrunken. However, I still believe in the right to end one’s life and that euthanasia is morally
…show more content…
This means that the action will not be involuntary. As for premise 2, it is sound since some cases of active euthanasia can demonstrate the criteria in premise 1. Therefore, active euthanasia is justified for some cases. Now, in refutation, one can argue that active euthanasia involves the physician or the doctor to kill their patients. This means that they are participating in murder. In response, I argue their involvement in administering euthanasia is not an act of killing or murder, but rather the act of letting the patient die. So, as per Difference Thesis, it is not equivalent to murder and therefore not immoral. Also, arguing against the optimific case seems rather absurd for everyone is satisfied. As Rachels states, “Considering all this, how can active euthanasia in this case be wrong? How can it be wrong to do an action that is merciful, that benefits everyone concerned, and that violates no one’s rights?” (Rachels 256). The optimal situation was met and the best action was taken for everyone. By allowing it to promote everyone’s best interests, Rachels’ argument also provides well-set criteria to perform euthanasia. Not everyone who wants it will get to have it but only when all the conditions are