Euthanasia Essay: Assisted Suicide -- Euthanasia Physician Assisted Su

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide In her story entitled Euthanasia, Phillipa Foot nones that euthanasia should be thought of as generate or otherwise opting for remnant for the sake of the one who is to die (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I hazard, that given moral grounds for suicide, impulsive euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his When Self-Determination Runs Amok, counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction amid cleanup and allowing to die, and the suspense about toxic consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahans reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong 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 only the right of a person to self-determination, but the transfer of the right to kill to the acting federal agent (presumably a physician) as well. This right, however, is temporary and restricted to killing the patient only. It is not clear why this temporary transfer makes euthanasia wrong, for if this is wrong, then let a patient die (in the case where the patient already has the financial aid of life-supporting equipment) is also wrong, if there is no distinction between killing and let 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 lead types of arguments that support euthanasia the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their li fe-support, and euthanasias good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral military rank 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 Center Report, March-April 1992, pp. 52-55. In EI, pp.409-415.