NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Problem Identification Paper It is not a secret that legalizing euthanasia as an acceptable social policy gains more and more supporters. Therefore, we can consider it as innovative social project, which hasnt been put to work yet. This papers task will be identifying the real motivations of those who support and object it. By analyzing various socio-political aspects of legalizing euthanasia we will be able to forecast the effects of adopting this policy in the long run. The term Euthanasia derives from two Greek words, which mean good death when combined. There are certain ethical aspects of this issue that now account for public controversy, surrounding problem.
Apparently, society is divided on those whore strongly opposed to terminally sick peoples right to end their life with dignity and those who think that democratic society should provide such right to its members. The core of this issue is ethical, but it also has a social aspects in it are those who dont contribute to society and are being burdened with its own existence should be allowed to continue on with their sufferings or should they be painlessly put to sleep instead? But this is only half of a problem, close to 70 % of people with incurable hereditary diseases are capable of passing their misery to next generation. Should they be allowed to do this? When we discuss this issue, we need to remember that those whore opposed to Euthanasia, largely base their arguments on public morality, which is based on Christian morality.
It is not a secret to anyone that Christianity has entered its dusk's and it wouldnt be too daring to say that there are not going to be any people left in the world that would seriously believe in Christian nonsense by year 2050. We face paradox Christianity has long ago ceased to be credible concept, yet our socio-political concepts are still largely based on it. This is the core of the problem. In my opinion, uneducated people simply do not have the right to impose their outdated moral doctrines onto society. It is essential to understand that the democratic idea of people enjoying their essential human rights, also mean that they should be allowed to make life / death decisions, for as long as it has to do with their personal lives.
There are also those whore simply incapable of making any decisions, being mentally retarded. In this case, the government of any healthy society has to be ruled by the principle of common good. There is certainly no public outcry when government tries to fight drug trafficking, as it poses danger to society as whole. Passing hereditary diseases is also just as dangerous, why people should be allowed to do this? Janice Procee's article The Case for Active Euthanasia deals with issue of whether Euthanasia should be legalized. I totally agree with her when she says: I believe that there are some circumstances when euthanasia is the morally correct action Just as homicide is acceptable in cases of self-defense, it could be considered acceptable if the motive is mercy (Procees).
Janice argues that the main principle, according to which our Medicare system should be functioning is mercy. This mercy has to be the foremost concern when it comes to treatment of any illness at the hospital. But there are cases when person cannot be cured and all he faces is a slow process of dying, which is more frightening for most of people than death itself. She rightly suggests that people should be allowed to do decide on their own, whether they want to live or die.
What is more cruel, to let terminally ill person to die in peace or forcing him to continue on with pointless existence? Procee's only concern seem to be the fact that if doctors are allowed to administer lethal injections to terminally ill people, it might result in many abuses. This, of course, is a problem, but it shouldnt prevent any public discussion regarding this issue. The Gail Deagle's article Euthanasia Reconsidered is about whether arguments of those whore in favor of legalizing euthanasia have any validity.
His approach towards the problem is somewhat moderate, comparing to Procee's. Author admits that present Christianized policies, concerning euthanasia, are being largely outdated. There is no question for him that something needs to be done to adjust our attitude towards this issue, according to nowadays realities. We need to consider carefully the arguments for and against voluntary active euthanasia.
And after that deliberation is complete, the second part of the debate will center on what we want the law to allow or prohibit. Euthanasia raises two basic moral issues that should be distinguished: the morality of euthanasia, and following that, the morality of euthanasia legislation. says Deagle. In my opinion, his approach can be characterized by the fact that he does realize the futility of forcibly maintaining lives of those who want to die, yet he is also very careful about how he uses words to argument this thesis. There is a good reason for such type of behavior. Christian fanatics have repeatedly threatened pro-choice and pro-euthanasia activists.
There are also cases when people were being actually shot at by the most faithful adherents of religion of love and peace. Author formally recognizes the validity of Christian arguments. But I think he does it rather out of inertia than believing that Bible thumper's are really concerned with anything else but maintaining its influence, which is being rapidly undermined. The difference in appreciation of life and death significances, discloses a new cultural war, which will end in separating Christian morality from that of surrounding society (Deagle) it goes to authors credit that he is able to distinguish between moralities of religion and society. We live in time when many moral principles are about to be replaced with new ones. Its beginning to happen in our days already.
Dutch parliament had recently passed the bill, which decriminalizes euthanasia. According to new law, it still illegal for doctors to assist in suicides, yet, if theyre caught doing this they wont be prosecuted. As time passes, people around the world will begin to realize that this is a right way to address the issue. Just as with decriminalizing marihuana in this country, there was an international public outcry against it, yet slowly people realized that this law simply deprived drug dealers of being able to make huge profits, because of price on illegal drugs. As a result, this law resulted in substantial reduction of drug abuse.
I think that we are to expect a similar effect from Dutch euthanasia law it will case this issue to lose much of its actuality, since there wont be any issue in the first place: those who want to die will be allowed to die and those who want to live will live. There is no question in my mind that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized. The only real strong force behind the movement to maintain status quo, regarding euthanasia, is Catholic Church. The new Pope, whose resemblance with Darth Serious from the latest Star Wars movie is rather striking, seems to be even more conservative then his predecessor, who couldnt raise his hand, yet was quite capable of encouraging youth not to use condoms. As matter of fact, Catholic Church has bigger problems that it needs to address, such as child molestation, practiced by many priests.
That is what it should be concerned about, instead of trying to influence complicated social issues. The euthanasia is not something that our evil society came up with. Its being practiced throughout the ages as part of eugenics. In ancient Sparta newborn children that were considered unfit for life, used to be thrown off the cliff.
Seemingly cruel, this practice allowed Sparta to dominate the rest of the states in Peloponnesus peninsula, as its citizens were superior physically and intellectually. It is needless to say that all our standards of beauty, culture and democracy derive from ancient Greece. The moralists tell us that once euthanasia is allowed, it will lead to the situation when the whole groups of unwanted people might come under threat. It is true, but it wouldnt be the biggest threat to normal functioning of our society. What represents a real danger is overpopulation. By year 2050 the earth population will reach 8 billion, which is 3 times more than our planet can provide food for.
Oddly enough, Christians dont talk much about it, even though this problem is the foremost UNs concern. Apparently, there is simply not enough room under the sun for all. The time will come very soon when countries social policies will have to be designed according to Darwin's survival of the fittest theory, if humans are to survive as specie. Under these circumstances it will be a crime to provide for those unfit for life, at the expense of denying chance to survive for young and healthy people. From our present prospective we can only discuss the hypothetical consequences of giving the euthanasia the status of active social project.
I personally think that the most immediate effect of health care liberalization is going to be the reduction of social tension in our society. Practice shows that the determination of retrogrades to conserve the old social order greatly diminishes, after the new social concepts are being put to work. Those who used to accuse Galileo of seven deadly sins for promoting his heliocentric theory, wanted to shake his hand a few years later, after they realized that there is no effective way to suppress human drive towards acquiring more knowledge. The similar will happen after euthanasia is being legalized. Were likely to have some major public protests, fueled by Christians, yet, they wont be considered as representative, simply because the small number of participants, as it always the case with various right-wing extremists, who claim to speak up on behalf of majority of Americans. But it wont be too long before public accepts the new social practice, based on scientific findings and the notion of common good.
This will help to form new foundations for the modern principles of morality. Legalizing euthanasia, as a social project, can also be thought of as an important step towards allowing more academic freedom in the field of genetic engineering and eugenics. Only by pursuing these projects as complex can insure that the humankind will be able to effectively deal with social challenges of 21 st century. Bibliography: Bohannon, Terry Euthanasia, The Good Death (April 15, 2001) Retrieved August 22, 2005 from web Deagle, Gail Euthanasia Reconsidered. Acting on Words. Rhetoric and Handbook.
Brundage and Lahey. Prentice Hall. Toronto. 2004 Procees, Janice The Case for Active Euthanasia. Acting on Words.
Rhetoric and Handbook. Brundage and Lahey. Prentice Hall. Toronto. 2004 Lane, Bob Euthanasia: The Debate Continues (June 6, 2004) Retrieved August 22, 2005 from web
Free research essays on topics related to: hereditary diseases, terminally ill, active euthanasia, euthanasia should be legalized, legalizing euthanasia
Research essay sample on Euthanasia Should Be Legalized Legalizing Euthanasia
