stressedstudent
|
 |   |  Report Post
|
Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Murder not mercy - A debate against euthanasia
Euthanasia has been advertised in a number a romantic views - Euthanasia as the right to die. Euthanasia as aid in dying. Euthanasia as mercy, not murder.
Let us see this issue in its simplest form – as murder, not mercy. The taboo which once surrounded euthanasia, effectively prohibiting its practice, no longer exists in the progressive society of today. The generation of today are embracing something their forefathers loathed and would quite rightly stand against. Murder.
Murder, is the cold-blooded termination of another’s life. Murder is still considered to be one of the most abhorrent offences in the world. In some societies, the death penalty is the only sanction deemed fit for the occurrence of such an unforgivable crime. Conversely, in others, life is considered to be an inalienable right of every human being. Life cannot be taken away by the state, other individuals and in a time not so long ago, yourself.
Suicide, here in the United Kingdom, was treated as a crime. There were strong beliefs within society, derived from religion, that intentionally taking your own life was morally wrong. This view was reflected by the law. However, this “crime” was later decriminalised, subsequent to recognition within society, that survivors of suicide attempts needed help not punishment. There was a common acceptance of the idea that those who were suicidal needed to be shown that life was worthwhile and that they themselves were worthy of living.
Euthanasia is distinguished from murder, by many who agree with the practice, with concepts of rights, mercy and dignity. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional practice of ending an individual’s life, by act or omission, where the predominant aim is to benefit that individual in some way. Euthanasia can be; voluntary, where the victim/individual expressly requests the right to die or non-voluntary, where the individual is unable to request aid in dying. In the latter circumstance the individuals may be unconscious (i.e. in a coma), or unable to communicate for example where the individuals are in a state of paralysis hindering communication or are small children, as were the Siamese twins Mary and Jodie. Non-voluntary euthanasia may also occur were the individual is said to be mentally unable to construct a meaningless decision between life and death.
At first glance euthanasia sounds ethically and morally acceptable-but is it?
Hidden beneath the fancy language lies the reality of murder. Concealed behind the notion of rights are lethal injections. Masked behind the belief of mercy is the withdrawal of medical aid. Disguised behind the principle of dignity is the elimination of the burden on society.
Legalisation of voluntary euthanasia will result in what is commonly referred to as the ‘slippery slope’ effect. Some of those in favour of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia with the appropriate safeguards oppose the idea of non-voluntary euthanasia being permitted. Yet, if voluntary euthanasia is legalised others in favour of non-voluntary euthanasia would argue that non-voluntary euthanasia should also be permissible. After all if one form is allowed than why not the other? Why should patients who cannot expressly request euthanasia be discriminated against? Why should their right to end their life be taken away because they cannot communicate as opposed to their fellow human beings who can ask for death?
Dignity is one of the most reiterated arguments trying to validate the proposal of euthanasia. We have been told a civilised society should allow people to die with dignity and without pain – and with this statement I wholly agree.
Dignity is the value or worth which a human being has by simply existing not taking into account the actions or class of that individual.
This civilised concept has been mirrored in the abolition of death penalties; the life of a murderer is no less worthy than that of an innocent civilian.
Euthanasia is typically thought of as ‘mercy killing’, as aiding a terminally ill patient to die, to avoid the harsher symptoms of an incurable disease, intolerable pain and suffering and to evade the loss of dignity; the loss of self-worth.
However, I don’t believe a civilised society should help to effectively kill others who cannot take their own lives. Hospices and homes, catering specifically for those with terminal conditions, have been established with the sole aim to enable the suffering to die without the loss of dignity, without the loss of worth and without pain.
-------
The moment we want to believe in something, we suddenly see the arguments for it and become blind to the arguments against it. |
| |
Posts: 2 | Posted: 2:41 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
|
|
Box of Fox
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Very well written.
Unfortunately, your audience is only so 2-dimensional, and I found it difficult to read. I would ask that you repeat your opinion on this matter in a more general sense, by saying what you feel in, if possible, only a small paragraph of your main point (summarize, more simply put). However, if you do not have an opinion, and simply only wish to make a point, I certainly will not push you to become rabid or biased :--).
|
| |
Posts: 85 | Posted: 11:21 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
|
|
DBettino
|
| | Report Post
|
Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Not only that, but it is a precious waste of state resources. Why would you keep a vegetable alive? What could that person possibly contribute to society? And how much money is wasted keeping them alive?
It makes no sense.
-------
Wake up, West!
-Oriana Fallaci |
| |
Posts: 14 | Posted: 03:23 AM on October 13, 2006 | IP
|
|
fredguff
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
| So you agree with the idea that only those who can contribute to society and can bring in more money than they spend should be allowed to live? |
|
Since the vast majority of individuals in vegetative-states are incapable of procreating, I believe the "Survival of the Fittest" argument is irrelevent to euthenasia discussions like this one.
|
| |
Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:15 AM on October 17, 2006 | IP
|
|
StefanKoh
|
| | Report Post
|
Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Euthanasia should be legal. It is inhuman for a terminally ill person to suffer if he/she is dying and is in great pain. When an animal suffers from something incurable and nothing can be done to relieve its pain, we put that animal down.
We should not let obsolete Christian beliefs decide on whether or not to legalise euthanasia. We need to let science decide on whether or not euthanasia should be legalised.
|
| |
Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:27 PM on February 8, 2010 | IP
|
|
|
[ Single page for this topic ]
|
|
|
Society Debates
