The Right To Die

3 Pages 741 Words

Euthanasia

The controversy of euthanasia has been debated for years. Is it immoral or just a way to help a person suffering? Both sides of this argument make good points, which make it even harder for one to decide. In the end, it is currently illegal in the states, but maybe this law should be changed.
In “Euthanasia – A Critique” published June 20, 1990, Peter A. Singer and Mark Siegler argue against two of the main basis for euthanasia: relief of suffering and individual rights. Their reasoning against relief of suffering is that they feel a patient can be put out of pain without death. They feel with better pain management patients won’t feel this way. They also dispute that the fear of dying is tied into this. For this cause, the writers state that a person can opt to not be put on life saving devices allowing them to pass, without relying on euthanasia. As far as individual rights are concerned the people behind this article state that “(the right to die) must be balanced against the legal, political, and religious prohibitions against killing that have always existed in society generally and in medicine particularly” (Singer/Siegler 334).
On the other hand, in “In Defense of Voluntary Euthanasia” published in 1987, the writer, Sidney Hook, is for euthanasia for two main reasons. First, because he went through an ordeal where he asked to be allowed to die and he was denied that right. Now, even though he has recovered a lot, he still feels he’s gone through more than enough, and wishes he could just pass away. His second reason is because he doesn’t want his family to have to go through seeing him in a stage where he can’t function properly. He feels that he has “lived a full and relatively happy life, I would cheerfully accept the chance to be reborn, but certainly not to be reborn again as an infirm octogenarian. To some extent, my views reflect what I have seen happen to the aged and stricken who...