Below is my critique of the essay, and I hope you find it cogent and enjoyable. I would venture a guess that such preferential treatment stems from our anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism. Humans, for some unaccountable reason, have intrinsic worth. We have no reason to believe so while depriving other creatures their intrinsic worth as well.
The right to die with dignity - euthanasia Background 1. Voluntary euthanasia is the practice of ending life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia is the humane, moral and civilised outcome for Australia and consistent with providing dignity for terminally ill patients who want it.
Australia, through the Euthanasia Laws Act, has denied people living in Territories the right, through their legislatures, to enact legislation permitting voluntary euthanasia, a right that is not denied people living in Australian States.
It has denied terminally ill people the right to die with dignity. The inability of State parliaments to stand up to organised religion also denies terminally ill people the right to die with dignity.
I am the ACT Chapter Coordinator for Exit International, the voluntary euthanasia organisation headed by Dr Philip Nitschke, and approach this issue as a middle-aged Australian male, in good health, who is saddened by the attitude, even arrogance, of those who deny the rights of terminally ill patients to access information about end of life options, and about accessing voluntary euthanasia.
Other people do not know what is better for terminally ill patients than the patients themselves. Whether or not I ever have the desire to request voluntary euthanasia, I, and many others, want the option of voluntary euthanasia. A1 Arguments in support of voluntary euthanasia A1.
Accordingly, democratic societies can make laws to prohibit murder and robbery, but should not make laws Morality and euthanasia prohibit sex before marriage, religion, or voluntary euthanasia.
This is because terminally ill patients who desire euthanasia for themselves are not physically harming other people.
In explaining her situation, she questioned that if she cannot give consent to her own death, then whose body is it?
It is anomalous that currently an act such as suicide can be legal, but to seek and gain assistance with that act is not. In effect, the Euthanasia Laws Act inflicts a form of discrimination on those terminally ill patients who would like to commit suicide but do not have the means to do so.
These are exactly the people for whom the option of voluntary euthanasia is particularly appealing. Voluntary euthanasia would reduce suffering and loss of dignity for terminally ill patients.
The concept of individualism is fundamental to democratic political theory. In a democratic society, individualism posits that latitude be given to individuals to behave as they wish, and to develop and satisfy their interests.
To deny a person the right to live his or her life as he or she wishes implies that each individual does not know what is right for himself or herself. Individuals can make important decisions about their bodies when they are young, for example, they can decide to participate in dangerous sporting activities or women can choose to have an abortion.
However, since the Euthanasia Laws Act came into force, it seems that somewhere between the ages of twenty when some women might have an abortion and seventy the age of some terminally ill patients women lose legal control of their bodies.
The Euthanasia Laws Act and its impact on terminally ill people is a denial of rights. It represents moral oppression at a level rarely experienced in Australia.
Members of the clergy, who seem to be the most vocal opponents of voluntary euthanasia, have imposed their values on euthanasia on other individuals through their opposition to the right to die, but I suspect that they would not entertain a reciprocal arrangement that impinged on their individual freedoms.
In the spirit of Voltaire, the clergy and other euthanasia opponents most certainly can remonstrate with people requesting euthanasia to change their minds, but they ought not to be able to compel them by insisting on a legislative fiat in a democracy. Voluntary euthanasia is morally just precisely because it is voluntary.
Voluntary euthanasia supporters on the other hand do not insist that all people must have voluntary euthanasia, but rather that everybody be given the choice. To be denied the right to make this decision is a blight on democracy.
In Australia, we now have the situation that elderly Australians are travelling overseas in search of voluntary euthanasia, attempting to manufacture drugs in Australia, travelling overseas to buy and import drugs, and taking other initiatives, to give themselves a dignified end of life option if they were to become terminally ill.
Australian doctors are assisting patients with voluntary euthanasia a survey indicated more than a third of doctors have done soalbeit in an illegal environment.
All of this activity is happening and is unrefuted, and no serious efforts are being made to stop any of this activity.Quora User supplies a wonderful answer that explains the situation very well. My personal feelings on euthanasia can be found at Andrew Perlberg's answer to Why is euthanizing animals considered a mercy, while for humans, who can make a conscious choice on the matter, it's a crime?.
There is one thing, however, I left out of that story.
The ethical grounds and practice of euthanasia has been deliberated ever since the world originated. In ancient Greece, the meaning of euthanasia literary stands for good death but its characterization modifies as time goes by.
The Morality of Euthanasia.
Active euthanasia —Performing an action that directly causes someone to die (“mercy killing”). Passive euthanasia —Allowing someone to die by not performing some life-sustaining action.
The Morality of Euthanasia. The Morality and Legality of Voluntary Euthanasia For most people involved in euthanasia they believe that some conditions are so bad that death is a benefit over living. Jun 01, · Abstract. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the opinions of a sample of Alberta physicians about the morality and legalization of active euthanasia, the determinants of these opinions and the frequency and sources of requests for assistance in active euthanasia.
Moral and Ethical Concerns Regarding Euthanasia One of the more controversial issues that medical scientists, religious leaders, political officials and ordinary people confront is the question of whether euthanasia is morally and/or ethically right.