Grayling's Arguments Against Euthanasia

A majority suffered terminal cancer and died at home under hospice care.” (“5 Death”) Hospice helps ease the nerves and misery of the family of terminally ill patients and the patients themselves. This form of palliative care is popular across the rest of the country and still does exist for people who chose to die by euthanasia and naturally. The care is meant to remove the stress and frustration of living with a dying patient and dealing with a terminal illness. It is not limited to just the people who are going to die in a few month’s time. If euthanasia would kill hospice and palliative care entirely, this would not happen, would it? So the argument for hospice and palliative care is invalid. Morally, the opposition and human society in
Your own selfish wishes and desires for them to not die by means of other humans humanely causes them to suffer their way into a slow, painful death. If it is the wish of the patient themselves to die with dignity and before they lose their mind and body entirely, why must we deny it? Some critics claim that we should deny it to avoid the worrying public conscience that allowed Hitler to go through with his plans of extermination. They honestly worry that if the killing of another human being is legalized in our society that society will degrade into a conscience of “killing is great, killing is fine, and killing is fun.” Critics believe that
If development in terminal care can be represented from the CURE mode of medical care to the CARE mode, enacting voluntary euthanasia legislation would permit a further progression to the KILL mode. The slippery slope argument represents the fear that, if this step is taken, then it will be difficult to avoid a further progression to the CULL mode … (Potts
He advocated the “perfect race” of blond-haired blue-eyed white Germans and wished to get rid of the impure lower races to “perfect” society. This is absolutely nothing like euthanasia and making a link between the two is extremely far-fetched. Euthanasia’s point is to end the suffering of voluntary terminally-ill patients who do not want to suffer their way to death. It is not the choice of the doctor or the family to end the life of the patients and patients, as mentioned earlier, must have a diagnosis of less than six months of life left to qualify. Hitler wouldn’t wait for someone to “qualify”, he would just kill them. He killed any group he did not like. Society certainly wouldn’t progress to cull mode just because of a single well-restricted law. Elizabeth Ogg, author of “Euthanasia Should Be Legalized” from the book Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints states on page 64 that no law is without risks. She says that “there might be some abuses, just as there are abuses of virtually every social practice” and that “There is absolutely no guarantee about that.” Yet she goes on to make the point that “the psychological version of the slippery-slope argument does not provide a decisive reason why euthanasia should remain illegal. The possibility of bad consequences should perhaps make us proceed cautiously in this area; but it should not stop us from