In the context of the theoretical proposition on the issue of law and morality, give consideration to euthanasia in the context of discussion in the lectures and readings about law and morality.

Authors Avatar

 

In the context of the theoretical proposition introduced in the lecture around the issue of law and morality, give consideration to euthanasia in the context of discussion in the lectures and readings about law and morality.

The law is created to reflect the society’s norms and mores, thus it is a mistake to see law as a completely separate and self contained system. However there is no single moral view held by the community. Each individual’s view varies depending on their social background, gender, race, income social class and education. Additionally not only do people have varies perspectives on the morality of a law but their level of conviction of how morally right or wrong the law maybe. One might say a law is wrong but are able to understand other people’s perspective on how it could be right while believe another law is outrageously and scandalously wrong. Thus issues such as euthanasia as many cases have shown conflict with what people morally believe the law should be.

House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as “a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering”, Problems of euthanasia is ancient but has surfaced in recent years with renewed urgency and relevance and has increasingly debated in the era of growing medical sophistication combined with long life expectancies, the dying process has been elongated. For those who are suffering it has been harder and harder to die not only because of our technological advances in the medical field but also because of our long held belief in prolonging life, thus the call, from a number of people, for legalising assisted deaths and suicide and the anti euthanasia response from others. The pro euthanasia argument includes the individual right and choice of those who would like to die, dying with dignity, and the belief that they are only legalising what is considered a normal practise. While the anti euthanasia argument is concerned with the right to life, the deterioration of society’s mores and beliefs on the concept of death and creating a path to other immoral activities.

Dying seems not so much a legal matter as a personal even intimate experience affected by bodily conditions, human relationships and social and medical practise. Hence taking this into consideration pro euthanasia groups believe in the individual right to die as well as the individual right to live so they believe the legal system should accommodate those who wish to be euthanized and for them to die with dignity. Euthanasia supporters believe that it is only legalising what is considered a normal practise and takes into account economic consideration of euthanizing.

Human rights argument as a demand for “keeping the state from prying into death chambers over dying people’s bedside and proactively as a claim for the creation of structures that enable people to die as they choose.” The right to die meant non interference by the state when mentally competent individual decides to bring about their own death then and there with the help from others. According to existing laws with the exception of a few states like Switzerland, the Netherlands and the US states of Oregon and Texas, euthanasia is outlawed and anyone assisting in the deaths will be criminalised. Anybody that discovers an attempted suicide situation, by law, must intervene. The person committing suicide would not be criminalised jurisdiction recognising that those who opted to commit suicide were deserving of compassion rather than punishment. Jurisdiction in England believes that “individuals desperate enough to attempt suicide are unlikely to be deterred from so doing so by a legal prohibition.” Although suicide and euthanasia is outlaw precedents has shown that when the question arises the courts has accepted that competent adult patients have the right to refuse further life sustaining treatment even if the eventual outcome is death. In the United States this was seen in Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of health, in England and Wales this was established in B v An NHS Hospital Trust, demonstrating that existing beliefs suggest that actively assisting someone’s death is morally wrong but indirectly allowing the person to die because of their refusal of treatment is acceptable contradictory to obligatory suicide interventions.

Join now!

Compassion is used by euthanasists to appeal to society’s sense of morality. Questioning the right for a dignified and painless death by those who wish to die, the key argument is that it is cruel to deny people who are in great pain and whose death is inevitable, a dignified death when appealed for it. In Rights of Terminally Ill Act 1995(NT), ads were portrayed to indicate euthanasia as a kind act to people who are suffering on the brink of death, creating widespread support.

However the notion of patients suffering extreme pain is contrary to findings that illustrate ...

This is a preview of the whole essay