In relation to the topic of euthanasia, I believe that the main moral issue lies within 2 separate questions. Does someone have the right to choose when to die? Does this person have the right to seek assistance in committing suicide from a practicing medical professional? Proponents of euthanasia usually take a stance where death is inevitable, so imminent, and the pain that will precede death so unbearable, that the only morally appropriate response is to end the life of the person by active means. Opponents contend that euthanasia is nothing more than suicide and murder.
An analogy that I once read, in relation to euthanasia, says that illness or some sort of ailment is like a murderer. The ill person is the victim. The victim is running down a long alley with the murderer closing from behind. Death for the victim is eminent. Euthanasia is like someone opening a door ahead of the person and shooting them point blank in the head.
Granted that death in euthanasia is “gentler” to the victim, but ultimately it is still killing someone. In addition who is to say that the murderer will truly kill the victim? On this particular subject, I feel that euthanasia should not be allowed. I believe that if done in an impossibly strict manner euthanasia could be beneficial to those suffering. Despite this, I feel that euthanasia should not be allowed because it does not stand up to a deontological test. Personal maxims should not be made universal if it cannot be applied universally. If we as a society allow euthanasia to occur to curb medical pain and suffering, what stops the scope from being broadened to people with severe depression, sick people with pressure from their family to die, and any sort of derivative that is not intended to be included in the just scope of euthanasia.Order now