James Rachels And Williams Arguments Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia is vastly controversial around the globe. Euthanasia is the act of painlessly killing a person either with serious medical conditions, or in a few places around the world patients can be killed solely out of desire. This can be broken down into two forms, passive or active euthanasia. The passive form is known as letting the patient die, or withholding the necessary medical treatment, while active is administering a drug that results in death (Vaughn 264). After reading Rachels and Williams readings of their views on euthanasia, I know have a clearer view of my side in this debate. James Rachels believes that there is no moral difference in killing someone and allowing them to die. He also believes that “active euthanasia is not

The first argument is the argument from nature. He argues that our bodies have a natural inclination to survive; whether our reflexes dodge a car, or “our capillaries seal shut” we still unconsciously protect ourselves to remain alive (William 320). The author states that “euthanasia does violence to this natural goal of survival. It is literally acting against nature” (William 320). Williams believes that euthanasia goes against humans’ instinctive goal to survive. The next argument Williams explains is the argument from self-interest. He explains that “death is final and the chance of error too great to approve the practice of euthanasia” (William 320). He also states that there is often misdiagnosis and “spontaneous remission does occur in many cases” (William 320). By euthanizing a patient there is no going back and there is “never a chance to reconsider” (William 321). Euthanasia limits all possibilities of being cured by a new medical discovery or recovery therefore William states that this is yet another reason to prove that it is wrong. The last and final argument that Williams describes is the argument from practical effects. This argument states that “doctors and nurses are, for the most part, totally committed to saving lives,” however, euthanasia might alter this (William 321). He also states that euthanasia will always be in the back of a doctors’ mind and they might not try as hard to save their patient (William 321). Doctors might believe that their patient is better off dead and it is easier to kill them. In addition, Williams states that this “policy is a slippery slope” for non-voluntary euthanasia and others may decide for the patient what they think is best, even when the patient does not have a say. William strongly believes that “the dangers of euthanasia are too great to all run the risk of approving it in any form” (William