Neil Gorsuch's Arguments Against Active Euthanasia

Euthanasia has been a heated topic for many decades, hotly debated not only by medical professionals, but also by politicians, academics, and basically anyone on the street when provoked to respond. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive, each of which contain sub-types such as voluntary, nonvoluntary, and involuntary. Active euthanasia, the focus of this paper, is defined in the text as “... the taking of immediate, direct steps to end a person’s life”. This essay will examine Neil Gorsuch’s argument against active euthanasia, as well as propose an objection to this argument. Neil Gorsuch is an opponent to active euthanasia, arguing that “human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking

He bases his argument on “secular moral theory...consistent with the common law and long-standing medical ethics” (157). His argument has a few parts, but the majority of its eight comes from his proof of human life being an inherent, basic good. By being a basic good, he means that human life is “intrinsically worthwhile, an end that is a reason, sufficient in and of itself, for action and choice and decision … is categorically good… is fulfilling in it’s own right” (158-158). He argues that there is proof of this in everyday life. For example, our respect for the idea of human equality. He believes that to harm something intentionally is to deny that it contains inherent value (163). This belief is the moral theory he bases his argument on, which he calls the “inviolability-of-life-principle”. He also believes, however, that we cannot

The first objection I have to his argument is it’s very foundation, that human life has inherent value: Gorsuch supports his argument by pointing out the idea of human equality, which he claims to be grounded on the intrinsic value of human beings. In opposition, I would like to point out that the notion of human equality is not universally shared by all humans, and never has been throughout all of human history. The debate of human equality is relatively new compared to how long human beings have walked the earth; if human life was inherently valuable, why would human equality not be an inherent belief in beings? Why is the debate on human equality surfacing so recently if it’s something inherent to our very nature? It would seem that, were the inviolability-of-life principle true, then equality should have existed from the very beginning, and would not even be a subject to debate about because it would be so inherent that we would have no cause to think of it. Human inequality is shown through many inescapable, historically repetitive events. Warfare, for example. If human life were inherently valuable, wars would not be fought with violence and death, but with words. Diplomacy and compromise would be the standard to solving issues amongst human beings. Also worth noting is the discrepancy between human beliefs. There