Euthanasia

Basic Background on the Topic: Euthanasia is one of the most contested topics in all ethics. Euthanasia is, as defined by Merriam Webster: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. So basically, euthanasia is, in layman's terms, the killing of a hopelessly sick or injured person or animal in a painless(so we believe) way because we want to be merciful. Burdens: So if I am successful in proving that euthanasia in a medical setting is not moral, then I win the debate. If I show that it is wrong in even just one instance, I win, since I have shown that euthanasia in a medical setting is not moraly. My opponent or opponents must show how euthanasia is always moral, since not doing so would be like admitting that euthanasia might not be moral, in which case I win. To my points: 1. Euthanasia is killing, no matter how you make it sound. Killing is always bad. We might kill because we might think we have to, but that doesn't make it right. Because killing is always immoral, euthanasia is always immoral. How do we know killing is immoral? We know killing is immoral because: a. We feel it is. Our feelings and conciensce are guides to morality. If we were to ask ourself why something is wrong, most of us would say, 'Because it feels wrong.' This of course, is assuming you don't know any moral theories to explain it. b. We are given no right to do so. If you cannot justify killing in any sense. c. Justifying killing would lead us on a path to destruction because we would be able to justify all sorts of other atrocities, due to the fact that we might think we are helping the victim.This argument is an argument that applies to all parts of this debate. However, later in this speech, I will be branching the debate into more specific areas. a. With consent. Euthanasia is still not moral, because we are killing. Look above for justification. b. Without consent. Euthanasia is especially not moral, because nothing has given the killer permission to do the act. Just because he/she believes he is acting out of mercy, the victim might desire. The problem with saying euthanasia is not killing is because that opens the door to a whole host of problems. If euthanasia is not killing, then what is it? The peaceful taking of ones life, sometimes without the victim's consent? The legalization of euthanasia undermines the impetus to develop truly compassionate approaches to the care of the suffering and the dying The proper expression of compassion is care motivated by a more or less strong sense of sympathy with the affliction of the person suffering. But one cannot care for people by killing them. It is very important to bear in mind that a key element in the context of contemporary debates about legalizing euthanasia is the drive to reduce health care costs. One of the conspicuous dangers of legalization is that, before long, euthanasia would be seen as a convenient 'solution' to the heavy demands on care made by certain types of patient. Medicine would thereby be robbed of the incentive to find genuinely compassionate solutions to the difficulties presented by such patients. The kind of humane impulses which have sustained the development of hospice medicine and care would be undermined because too many would think euthanasia a cheaper and less personally demanding solution says Luke Gormally in 1997. Let the following quotation from the House of Lords' Select Committee Report stand as the epitome of the collective wisdom of these Committees: '[S]ociety's prohibition of intentional killing ...is the cornerstone of law and social relationships. It protects each of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. We do not wish that protection to be diminished and we therefore recommend that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia ...The death of a person affects the lives of others, often in ways and to an extent which cannot be foreseen. We believe that the issue of euthanasia is one in which the interest of the individual cannot be separated from the interest of society as a whole.' It is the hope of the present writer that the members of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee will, after due consideration, associate themselves with the moral and political wisdom exhibited in this statement. In Conclusion: The fact that euthanasia is killing, and killing immoral, so euthanasia is immoral..The exiting of life from one body, aided by the medicine of another is indeed immoral thats why it's immoral.