ipl-logo

Pro Euthanasia

936 Words4 Pages

According to Paul Keating “Euthanasia is a Threshold Moment We Should Not Cross” from The Sydney Morning Herald, euthanasia is a negative form of treatment for patients with terminal illnesses and has negative effects on other aspects of society. Multiple studies are referenced and examples are given to support the authors claim that euthanasia is wrong and should be avoided. The use of euthanasia is related to assisted suicide or the intentional killing of a patient by physicians. The author also discusses the idea of safeguards that are said to be put in place to protect the patient from any consequences other than to put them out of their pain and misery. Keating debates that these ideas of ‘safeguards’ will not help due to the human error …show more content…

Fisher states that the argument of Pro-euthanasia is the “argument from quality of life”, and whether or not it should be used is specific to the patient’s situation. The two types of euthanasia that are supported by pro-euthanasia, is voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient themselves makes the choice for their lives to be terminated to avoid suffering, but many patients are not physically able to make this large decision themselves. For example, if the patient is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), the decision is made by another person whether it be a family member or caregiver, which is called non-voluntary euthanasia (Fisher …show more content…

Similar to most arguments in this world, the argument of euthanasia has two sides. This means that this option is a compromise for both sides. “‘Agreeing to disagree’ is a philosophically coherent position to advocate given the strong underlyingviews on both sides of the debate” (Holm 399). In the article, “ Euthanasia: agreeing to disagree?”, Holm discusses the advantages of finding common ground and justifies the advocation of a compromise. This would allow the patient to make the decision of voluntary euthanasia, if they were capable of making this decision. Terminally ill patients should have this decision available if they seem necessary for their own lives. Both sides of the argument can be ethically justifiable, although most individuals choose to pick sides, this is why a compromise could be important

Open Document