Rachels And Williams Arguments Against Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that is spreading throughout the world. Euthanasia has two different forms which are Passive and Active. It is not only controversial weather it should be legal a whole but also controversial if both forms of euthanasia should be legal. Rachels and Williams are two philosophers who give their unique input on what is right and wrong. Williams disagrees with euthanasia while Rachels urges for doctors to agree with euthanasia. For me personally I feel that Euthanasia should be a freedom any rational or previously rational human being should have. There are two types of euthanasia and they are active and passive. Active euthanasia is when a doctor gives a lethal injection or gives the patient medicine
…show more content…
that will end his life in a humane way. Passive euthanasia is when a doctor is told by the patient that he no longer wishes to take medication and die of natural causes. Rachels feels that both forms of euthanasia are moral and should be practiced, he also feels that both share the same severity when talking about which one is worse. Rachels talks about the view varying severities when he says, “the idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient.” (289) and then goes on to say, “In what follows I will set out some of the relevant arguments, and urge doctors to reconsider their views on the matter.” (289). He gives an example of how passive euthanasia is used and passive should be used in order to solidify his idea that both forms are equal and should be practiced. The situation is “a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be cured.” (289). The patient and his family in this thought experiment wishes to die because he knows that the end is inevitable so the doctor decides that he will grant him passive euthanasia because active is not legal and the patient goes through a few more days of agonizing pain before he passes away. Rachels states that, “Part of my point is that the process of being allowed to die can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless.” (289). Another example that Rachels gives is about a baby born with down syndrome that needs a simple surgery to live but the parents say that they don’t want their baby to have the surgery and the doctors are forced to watch the baby die of natural causes. In this situation he says, “why should anyone favor letting dehydration and infection wither a tiny being over hours and days” (290). I think that Rachels makes a very persuasive case and I fully agree with both points he makes. I feel that I have a view almost identical to Rachels.
Part 2 Williams article, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, describes why he feels that euthanasia is wrong by giving 3 different points which are the argument of nature, the argument of self-interest and the argument of practical effects.
Williams starts off the writing with the statement, “Although I respect the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe the conclusion is wrong. I want to show that euthanasia is wrong” (WEB). This shows that she is understanding of the view that it is right but feels that euthanasia is still wrong. The first augment is the argument of Nature which is stated, “Euthanasia does violence to this natural goal of survival. It is literally acting against nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily survival.” (WEB). This argument basically states that it is natural for a human to fight to live no matter what and when you provide an out for human it is unjust because it isn’t the way nature had intended it to be. The second point that is made is the argument for self-interest which is stated as, “We may think that we have no hope of recovery when, as a matter of fact, our chances are quite good. In such circumstances, if euthanasia were permitted, we would die needlessly.” (WEB). Basically this argument states that miracles do happen and if we allow doctors to end someone’s life it gives them no chance for the miracle. The last argument is the argument of practical effects which is described as, “It could have a
corrupting influence so that in any case that is severe doctors and nurses might not try hard enough to save the patient.” (WEB). I feel like these are very good points when deciding if euthanasia should be legal however I feel that the good of pro-choice outweighs the bad that Williams points out in the article. Williams and Rachels both make very good arguments on the topic of euthanasia. This is going to be a very controversial topic over the next few years and I strongly agree that it should be legal. I feel that more people need to come forward with their opinions because both of these readings gave me good insight on the good and bad so I can better construct why I believe it is right. I hope that in the coming years this becomes a universally legal practice.
that will end his life in a humane way. Passive euthanasia is when a doctor is told by the patient that he no longer wishes to take medication and die of natural causes. Rachels feels that both forms of euthanasia are moral and should be practiced, he also feels that both share the same severity when talking about which one is worse. Rachels talks about the view varying severities when he says, “the idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient.” (289) and then goes on to say, “In what follows I will set out some of the relevant arguments, and urge doctors to reconsider their views on the matter.” (289). He gives an example of how passive euthanasia is used and passive should be used in order to solidify his idea that both forms are equal and should be practiced. The situation is “a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be cured.” (289). The patient and his family in this thought experiment wishes to die because he knows that the end is inevitable so the doctor decides that he will grant him passive euthanasia because active is not legal and the patient goes through a few more days of agonizing pain before he passes away. Rachels states that, “Part of my point is that the process of being allowed to die can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless.” (289). Another example that Rachels gives is about a baby born with down syndrome that needs a simple surgery to live but the parents say that they don’t want their baby to have the surgery and the doctors are forced to watch the baby die of natural causes. In this situation he says, “why should anyone favor letting dehydration and infection wither a tiny being over hours and days” (290). I think that Rachels makes a very persuasive case and I fully agree with both points he makes. I feel that I have a view almost identical to Rachels.
Part 2 Williams article, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, describes why he feels that euthanasia is wrong by giving 3 different points which are the argument of nature, the argument of self-interest and the argument of practical effects.
Williams starts off the writing with the statement, “Although I respect the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe the conclusion is wrong. I want to show that euthanasia is wrong” (WEB). This shows that she is understanding of the view that it is right but feels that euthanasia is still wrong. The first augment is the argument of Nature which is stated, “Euthanasia does violence to this natural goal of survival. It is literally acting against nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily survival.” (WEB). This argument basically states that it is natural for a human to fight to live no matter what and when you provide an out for human it is unjust because it isn’t the way nature had intended it to be. The second point that is made is the argument for self-interest which is stated as, “We may think that we have no hope of recovery when, as a matter of fact, our chances are quite good. In such circumstances, if euthanasia were permitted, we would die needlessly.” (WEB). Basically this argument states that miracles do happen and if we allow doctors to end someone’s life it gives them no chance for the miracle. The last argument is the argument of practical effects which is described as, “It could have a
corrupting influence so that in any case that is severe doctors and nurses might not try hard enough to save the patient.” (WEB). I feel like these are very good points when deciding if euthanasia should be legal however I feel that the good of pro-choice outweighs the bad that Williams points out in the article. Williams and Rachels both make very good arguments on the topic of euthanasia. This is going to be a very controversial topic over the next few years and I strongly agree that it should be legal. I feel that more people need to come forward with their opinions because both of these readings gave me good insight on the good and bad so I can better construct why I believe it is right. I hope that in the coming years this becomes a universally legal practice.