Mendelson's Arguments Against Euthanasia
Way back in ancient Greece and Rome, before the coming of Christianity, active euthanasia and suicide was a very controversial topic among society. That was five centuries B.C. This is the 21st now, and it is still an issue today. What is Euthanasia? Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient who is suffering from an incurable disease or terminal illness. Today, it is a rising issue that many people are beginning to question. Is this practice okay? Those who approve of euthanasia feel that it is not a problem for someone who is intensely suffering to be granted the wish of dying to end pain. There are many controversies over whether or not euthanasia should be legal. As for me, I strongly believe that killing someone or assisting
…show more content…
In his article Terminally Ill People Should Have the Right to Die, Scott Mendelson argues against this saying that it should be up to the individual people whether or not they want to live or die. He goes on to explain that suffering is worse than putting someone to death. In my eyes, when we let these people die by choice, who else is going to want to do the same? How many more doors will be opened to allow things that are worse? If euthanasia is allowed under the moral claim that it is best for the patient, what is going to stop the government from doing more? They may eventually step in and choose who else needs to be removed and put to death. Will the definition of euthanasia be expanded to include people who are suffering from mere depression, or just don’t like living, or are not productive in our society? We have to ask that if the door to killing people in their old age is opened, can it ever be closed again? Matt Slick of The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry makes a point when he says, “The beginning of life is now open to destruction in abortion, and the end of life is now being considered for destruction as well. How many of those in the middle will fall prey to the lack of the world’s moral relativism?” There is no way the world will be able to stop these kinds of acts. By agreeing to allow euthanasia, we would only be setting ourselves up for worse things to come. In the end, we would only be hurting ourselves. and that contradicts the point of ‘ending people’s
In his article Terminally Ill People Should Have the Right to Die, Scott Mendelson argues against this saying that it should be up to the individual people whether or not they want to live or die. He goes on to explain that suffering is worse than putting someone to death. In my eyes, when we let these people die by choice, who else is going to want to do the same? How many more doors will be opened to allow things that are worse? If euthanasia is allowed under the moral claim that it is best for the patient, what is going to stop the government from doing more? They may eventually step in and choose who else needs to be removed and put to death. Will the definition of euthanasia be expanded to include people who are suffering from mere depression, or just don’t like living, or are not productive in our society? We have to ask that if the door to killing people in their old age is opened, can it ever be closed again? Matt Slick of The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry makes a point when he says, “The beginning of life is now open to destruction in abortion, and the end of life is now being considered for destruction as well. How many of those in the middle will fall prey to the lack of the world’s moral relativism?” There is no way the world will be able to stop these kinds of acts. By agreeing to allow euthanasia, we would only be setting ourselves up for worse things to come. In the end, we would only be hurting ourselves. and that contradicts the point of ‘ending people’s