Custom essays: Euthanasia
A church reprobates euthanasia fully. Conviction concerns each encroachment upon human life – both in the case of abortion and in the case of euthanasia. But in a question about the waiver of artificial life-support a church is not so emphatic and comes from next principles. In the case of presence of the least chance on an exit from the comatose state it is necessary to use all possible methods to support life of patient. It is special important then, when a patient is not able independently to say of the consent. But if the comatose state is irreversibly, it’s not necessarily to use the painful and expensive methods of both financial and personal character. Artificial sustention of human life at complete absence of cerebral activity, reflexes, independent breathing and palpitation would be an outrage on dying man and heavy trauma for his relatives.
It is possible to bring three objections against its prohibition. At first, because as pain, related to continuation of life, is also evil; does a doctor do less evil, renouncing to carry out voluntarily euthanasia, than executing it? A refuse to resort to euthanasia means a decision to have a pain; it is a not choice of pain as itself. Although pain in itself is bad and its infliction is evil, the decision to feel pain is morally. It is the act of firmness.
Secondly, aren’t the death penalty and fatal acts of self-defense also choice of death? The executioner has the certain intention to kill the condemned.
Thirdly, and really choice lesser of two evils is not morally preferable in instance where in a prospect is only evil? In the basis of general-accepted permission to use the euthanasia the principle of “self-government” lays — the idea that everybody has a right to accept the own decisions about actions which influence exceptionally on him.custom essays
The supporters of euthanasia postulate, that life can be considered the blessing until it has a deserving form, exists in the field of culture, moral relations. Degrading to particularly vital, non-human level, it is deprived ethics approval and can be examined as an object, thing, and that is why question about its stopping no more than question about, whether this dried-up tree should be cut down.
This argument strikes foremost its emotional emptiness, because besides exteriority of human life there is its internal side. And whatever zoological, plant level it actually did not degrade to, it doesn’t meant that a man is ready to feel himself or to behave to his relatives in such state also, as he behaves to the dried-up tree or thistle.
It is appropriate to remind here about a relation a man to the dead remains of his confreres: graves are the thing of respect, and it is examined as showing of attitude toward those people, by a reminder which they are about. If moral attitude toward a man spreads on his remains, even more so it must spread on a living body, even distorted by the illness.
The Criminal law of the most countries examines euthanasia as murder, to my mind, it is too strict determination. In fact intention of person, accomplishing certain actions, consists of helping to the sick man to decrease his sufferings, besides according his own will.
I my essay I tried to mention different opinions about this question. As we can see they can be quite contradictive and the problem is relevant in our society. As for me I’m against euthanasia, because I think that the life can be taken away only those, who gave it, the God. May be it is quite cruel in relation to the suffering people, but the question of “life or death” is to difficult for the humanity.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.