Euthanasia Essay: Assisted Suicide -- Euthanasia Physician Assisted Su

Euthanasia and Assisted felo-de-se In her paper entitled Euthanasia, Phillipa Foot notes that mercy killing should be horizon of as inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the unrivalled who is to die (MI, 8). In righteous Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given virtuous grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his When Self-Determination Runs Amok, takes that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction amid obliterateing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahans reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally equipment casualty and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that. Callahan first goes on to state that euthanasia is different from suicide in that it involves not hardly the right of a person to self-determination, but the transfer of the right to kill to the acting agent (presumably a physician) as well. This right, however, is temporary and restricted to killing the persevering only. It is not clear why this temporary transfer makes euthanasia wrong, for if this is wrong, then letting a patient die (in the case where the patient already has the assistance of life-supporting equipment) is also wrong, if there is no distinction amid killing and letting die. So, we must return to this argument after addressing Callahans claims of a distinction between killing and allowing to die. The argument for the distinction is based on the cause of death. In the classic example of a doctor unplugging life-sustaining equipment, the cited cause of death is disease or... ... I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahans reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia the right to self-determination, the insignificant contravention between killing a nd letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasias good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahans objections against these reasons do not hold. Works Cited MI Narveson, Jan, ed. Moral Issues. Toronto Oxford, 1983. EI Soifer, Eldon, ed. Ethical Issues. Peterborough Broadview Press, 1997. MM Narveson, Jan. Moral Matters. Peterborough Broadview Press, 1993. Callahan, Daniel. When Self-Determination Runs Amok, in Hastings cracker Report, March-April 1992, pp. 52-55. In EI, pp.409-415.