Dan Brock's Views On Euthanasia

Dan Brock and James Rachel both make persuasive arguments regarding the controversial dilemma "Is Euthanasia morally permissible?". Of the two articles, however, Dan Brock's analysis of the key arguments and resolution of the points brought against euthanasia is the stronger argument compared to James Rachel's moral argument that active euthanasia is permissible because passive is. The main problem lying with euthanasia is simply put, do we as a society weigh actual life more than quality of life. Euthanasia however, should be, and is based upon quality of life, which is why it's morally permissible as a course of action. Dan Brock's Voluntary Active Euthanasia (Vaughn, 586-601) exemplifies a strong argument for the moral justification of

If a doctor acts upon a terminally ill patient's request to die and that patient is only being kept alive via machinery, then it is considered morally permissible, because the doctor's merely letting the person die. However should a family member do the same thing however they do it because of medical expenses or for another reason then it's killing. In these instances what the doctors are doing is morally permissible because they're acting along the wishes of the patient. Whereas the family member isn't acting in a matter of good faith, they're driven by greed or self-interest. Brock makes the point that people have the right to not be killed, as in both examples what occurred was an action that caused the death of the terminally ill patient, the textbook definition of being killed. However, as with all rights, we have the right to waive them. So between these two examples, the right not to be killed is waived when the doctor acts according to their wishes, but not when the family member acts. Finally Brock looks into potential positive and negative consequences of legalizing voluntary euthanasia, largely the benefits are drawn from people being able to end their suffering, and negatively we

Not simply because it's the topic provided, but because it allows the patient freedom of choice. It just so happens that in this case, the choice is their life. While the issue of choice has been hotly contested in the United States of America for the last couple decades, the ideal is that you're allowed to make decisions regarding your life so long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses right to rule their own life. This idea is touched upon in Dan Brock's paper when he discusses self-governance, but here I feel it is more poignant. There's a famous quote by William Ernest Henley that says "I am the master of my fate". This idea that everyone controls their own life is what's being drawn upon here. Beyond that key idea, you also have the concept of suffering. Should someone live a active and self-described fulfilling life filled with friends, relationships, and self-actualization, but one day become a quadriplegic, deaf, and mute all at once, and they blinked out a message asking to be killed because for them to live is so far from what they knew as fulfilling. To deny them would be say "I'm subjecting you to this life that you don't consider worth living". Regardless of the wording, that's what would be said to this unfortunate person. The suffering that would be piled upon them would be unimaginable, and in a case like the one above, positively torturous. Finally, and mostly directed at doctors, there's the