Is it valid to judge other peoples decisions related to Euthanasia? And how do we know whose premises are true?
- When looking at the problem of knowledge of ‘is it valid to judge’, we need to know how we test validity. How can we know we are right and someone else is wrong?
- Ethical, Political and Social issues will have different premises when making a decision of whether it should be justified, however, the slippery slope argument always arises, because if It was to be legalized, you could not totally control it. Therefore, it is not justified. A lot of pragmatism also arises in this issue, because no decision can be made without consequences.
- (And if Euthanasia is sometimes right, under what circumstances is it right?)
- Can we be certain? Right in certainty – but there is never certainty – but it is sometimes useful because it is expensive to keep life on ( treatments or machines)
- If an individual is never capable of ever becoming better again and is not mentally aware of anything in reality, should he die? However, there are no limits to whether science can produce future medication. Society can’t support all these people – they have no use. Can we keep all the people like this on earth alive – but the problem of knowledge still arises: Is it right to do away with people who cant make the decision for themselves????
- But family loves them so wants to keep them alive. They still have hope, even if its something worthless, because they are driven by their emotions to do so. .
- Is it ever right or ethical for another person to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in severe pain or enduring suffering?
- Religious would say no as they say no for abortion. But in fact it is not valid since it is human machines or treatments that keep that keep the patient in life.
- Doctors are the ones who must carry out the process of euthanasia, and need to medically prove that there is no alternative. Problem of religion who see this as ‘murder’. Humans need ‘someone to take the blame’ someone to take the responsibility. Is it right to put the responsibility on the doctors?
- There are also Culture/religion restrictions - Less than 50% of religious people said that euthanasia should be legalized. whereas 100% of non religious people said that Euthanasia should be legalized. There is a clear ‘cultural clash’.
DEBATE ON AGAINST AND FOR
- Euthanasia could be used as an excuse to kill people
- But it could be kept under control with laws
- There is no way being able to control every doctor.
- Yes, but the process would be supervised to ensure security, and the family would have agreed and even when it isn’t legal, people still do it.
- Yes, the government is putting the family under pressure.
- But without this, imagine if every single person terminally ill, handicapped, or in a coma was to be looked after using machines and medicine, even though these people are going to die. That is why the government would put a maximum of years on looking after people I comas and then euthanasia can take place, because no more room , time or money would be spent on these people.
- But you cant interfere with God. He says that you cannot kill other people and that only he has the right to decide when someone dies.
- But if we follow the will of God, they will die anyway, so why should we spend our time and money keeping them alive, where without our help, they would be dead anyway, especially the ones under machine control.
-
What is the meaning and value of human existence?
God says that everyone is the same, and that life is sacrosanct (Must be kept sacred) but at the same time the right of the individual.
But as a society, we ‘rank people’. With reason, people in comas have a right to live but are an unnecessary responsibility on society. Is it right to install laws about the time to keep them alive? Is there a right culture with better premiscies they can base their decision on? Should laws depend on each culture, or should there be one global law so that there is fairness, because different laws clearly cause conflict.
In most human minds, the value of human existence is worth more than animal existence, so why should be let people suffer instead of making them die gently and without pain, as we do with animals? Just because society says we are human beings so it’s bad to kill, even if it could be a better solution. Human don’t always consider an animal’s feelings about dying, whereas a much bigger deal is made about a human being.
It depends on the handicap and on persons can decide of their fate. In some culture you cannot even sustain the life (poor countries). Conservative viewer = instaure laws + kill because it will cost less to the government. Liberetive view = kill because it is the right of the individual, but if he/she can not, maybe family should decide
- If different cultures, have different religions, premises and values, should they have different laws?
None of the religious people who took the survey thought that the government should make laws about creating a timeline on use of facilities, whereas 50% of the non-religious people said that laws should be put into place.
- Is there any moral difference between killing someone and letting them die?
Difference between both, die peacefully. Emotions make our instinct be that we are shocked, if they ‘kill’ and its not as bad. It’s the person close to suffering one that overreact. “Euthanasia can be carried out either by doing something, such as giving a lethal injection, or by not to do something necessary to keep the person alive (for example failing to keep their feeding tube going).” (a case where an old man had pulmonary cancer, so he was suffering in the inside, and was terminally ill, but the doctors were suppose to take the liquid out every day, but they stopped one day without telling anyone, and so died in a lot of pain without saying goodbye to family. This case could have been avoided if the doctors wont scared of being charged and would have told somebody they were going to do it. If it was legalized, the doctor would have done it in better circumstances (lethal injection of example)
- Should there be different rules for different levels of being ill (terminally ill, coma?
different laws for different levels. Reason says that if we ‘know’ the person won’t heal… once again, what are our limits of us knowing knowledge. (science/technology/miracles!)(Some people in comas have cerebral activity).
- What should the consequences be if someone does illegal E – prison? culture
Consequences should be – (ARTICLE where doctor had to do it.. ask class) – different people who think differently – logical thing to do in situation and logically right.
In Switzerland, Euthanasia Doctor Commits Suicide after Finding Patient He Killed Was Not Terminally Ill. He was charged with being financially motivated. "Making poisonous cocktails available has deviated into pure business, and medical reports are being misused as an excuse”. He killed himself… he was just doing his job, fault of woman who lied to him, but she is dead, so society needs to blame someone.
From this we can ask ourselves whether punishment is justified, because some doctors might just have agreed to help a suffering patient/
Conclusion
Final legalizing decisions will always depends on different cultures in different part of the word, and different religions.
If there is no way that the person will ever wake up or will wake up braindead. How do we know that it is defiantly not possible, with science in the future, to cure them? Is it right or wrong?? We won’t know because people don’t agree on the same premiscies and never will. But euthanasia can save (end suffering of family, money, time).
Reason and Emotion, when balanced out appropriately