Rachel and J. Gay-WIlliams have opposing ethical positions regarding physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Rachel backs his ethical approval of euthanasia with two strong arguments. His first argument is the “Utilitarian version of the argument” (Rachels, RIght Thing To Do, 350). This basic claim is that “any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the world or to decrease the amount of misery” (Rachels, RTD, 350). Since those who would be euthanized would become relieved of their unpreventable and agonizing pain (i.e. misery) euthanasia would be morally right. His second argument is that as long as it is in everyone’s best interest, euthanizing a person is a morally acceptable act (Rachels, RTD, 352).
…show more content…
Gay-Williams supports his ethical disapproval of euthanasia with three equally strong arguments. His first argument is the argument from nature. He explains that our bodies are made to survive thus euthanasia would be going against our very own human character making us “less than human” (Rachels, RTD, 355). His second defense is the argument from self-interest. New effective medical treatments, mistaken diagnoses, and miracle recoveries would never be given the chance to occur (Rachels, RTD, 356). Others may also choose euthanasia too soon, weakening the body’s chance to fight an illness. A person may also choose euthanasia for selfless reasons (e.g. they see their spouse suffering from hospital visits or going into debt). J. Gay Williams third argument, the argument from practical effects, is what I find most convincing. He speaks about euthanasia going against doctors and nurses very commitment which may therefore lead to an “overall decline in medical healthcare” (Rachels, RTD, 357). It is also may cause a ripple effect in regards to killing (Rachels, RTD,