J Gay Williams The Wrongfulness Of Euthanasia Summary

In this paper, I will discuss euthanasia and demonstrate its immoral implications using J. Gay-Williams’ essay, “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”; more specifically his attempt to show the wrongfulness of euthanasia through an argument from nature. I believe that the argument is valid and presents a very good approach for those who are opposed to euthanasia. Below is my effort to summarize this view by placing it in the standard argument format.

Argument from Nature 1) If there is a person in a situation, where a natural instinct compels them to take action, it is morally wrong to intentionally suppress that instinct. 2) In all euthanasia cases, there is a doctor is in a situation where their patient’s natural instinct
The rules are as follows: 1) all the premises are reasonable 2) the conclusion follows 3) the argument does not beg the question. Premise one may be better explained in and of itself through an example having to do with a general, natural instinct. One example could be when someone is in a situation in which their family is put in harms way when an intruder with sinister motives enters their house. It is a natural reaction to protect that which belongs to you (in this situation your property-your “territory” and your blood- your family). To stand idly by and witness attacks upon your family and home, without in any way, making an effort to stop the attacks, would require an intentional suppression of a natural instinct. Premise two becomes more specific by stating that in euthanasia cases throughout, a doctor is always in a situation in which their patient’s natural instincts compel them (for as we saw in the quotes from J. Gay-Williams, a human’s conditioned response in all situations-based on the make-up of the body-is to function in a way that would always enable (or lean towards) continuity.) to survive. The way to show that this argument follows rule number two is to reveal its logical pattern. 1) If there is P (a person in a situation), where Q (a natural instinct compels them to take an action), it is R (morally wrong to
Someone might say that the premise is generalizing when it says “all euthanasia cases”, because in certain cases of euthanasia a person might not be being kept alive through natural means any longer (such as: artificial life support); therefore, it can’t be said that the person’s natural instinct is to survive because without life support the person would have already died thus following the natural instinct towards death. My response to this objection would be the following: in my interpretation of J. Gay-Williams argument from nature, I used “In all euthanasia cases, there is a doctor is in a situation where their patient’s natural instinct compels them to survive.” As my second premise. And I must admit, that with this as the second premise, the argument is flawed as the objector revealed. However, if I were to make the second premise not end with “natural instinct compels them to survive” and rather put “natural instinct compels them” then it wouldn’t be a flawed argument. This is because it would merely be adding a twist on the argument, which Gay-Williams did not come right out and say, but it is implied. This twist that is implied is that it is morally wrong to go against any natural human instinct, and this includes the natural instinct of dying. Maybe then, the problem of removing someone or not removing someone from life support would no longer be the problem, due to the fact that