In his essay on euthanasia Callahan describes the act of euthanasia as a form of what he would call “private killing”, instances where the death of a person, inflicted by another person, were agreed upon by those two persons in a private setting apart from any legal or civil authority. Callahan mentions dueling, a form of prearranged combat between two individuals to settle private disagreements, as another form of these private killings. Euthanasia falls into the category of private killing in that it involves two parties, a doctor and a patient, and the contract to end one’s life, the patients, is agreed upon by the two parties in private, without the actual involvement of any public authorities.
It is this lack of involvement by public authorities that Callahan claims I wrong with these contracts between doctors and patients. The confidential nature of doctor-patient relationships gives doctors a great deal of influence, protecting them from the risk of legal ramifications. Consequently, a doctor could influence a patient’s decision in matters of euthanasia, whether it be with words, body language, or lack of either of these, the amount of trust a patient puts in their doctor easily sways the decisions they make. It is because no one could regulate the doctor’s
…show more content…
One of the ways legalization would affect society is by changing the way we view medical professionals, who have traditionally been seen as one who preserves life, ultimately by empowering a physician to take life the entire nature of the values of medicine would be altered. Another of the authors reasons is the nature of the suffering involved in euthanasia, some would say it needs to be an incurable illness that will end in death, others, persistent and unmanageable suffering. It is this inability to endure suffering that can send the wrong message to society as