Moral argument Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Moral argument - Essay ExampleDr. Cox did active euthanasia and it is considered a sin and a crime. Passive euthanasia is legal and is done by withholding life-sustaining assistance, while active euthanasia (physician-assisted) involves acts that will hasten someones ending (Green 641). Although many people think that active euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is chastely wrong and is a total disregard for the sanctity of life, three reasons why physician-assisted suicide is morally right are that it is a respect for the paramount right of an individual to execute sovereignty on matters that concerns only the self, it is the same as passive euthanasia, and it provides haughtiness in death (Green 640). First, opponents claim that active euthanasia disregards the individuals right to life. It is claimed that the aim of medicine is always to look for ways to cure an illness, which is root in the idea of prolonging a persons life. It is claimed that there is also a possibility that an ill person may be under wardrobe to choose euthanasia rather than be a burden to other family members. There is also the possibility of misdiagnosis or miscalculations by doctors, and death can no longer be reversed (Linville 201-2). There is no denying that the logic of these claims have value. However, while people focus on an individuals right to life, it is forget that the individual also has an absolute right over matters that concerns only the person who is involved. This means that to be able to exercise the right to choose life or death is a paramount right for every individual in the event when no intervention or help can be currently applied or given to alleviate the persons condition. An individual must have the right to decide and choose if the remaining solutions to end the impermissible suffering are merely between miracle and death. Regarding medical misdiagnosis or miscalculations, while it is true that doctors sometimes make mistakes, they are still ofte n correct than wrong. In this matter, the individual is sovereign (Linville 204-5) and that each individual has the right to decide on personal matters. Second, opponents claim that such act goes against the Hippocratic Oath. It is said that doctors are not meant to harm patients, particularly through their profession. Killing them is harming them (Klampfer 7). This claim is understandable. However, there had been so many modifications of the Hippocratic Oath over the years because some of its doctrines are no longer appropriate with the existing society (Klampfer 11). For example, the first paragraph of the oath has been changed because swearing to Greek gods and goddesses may be considered offensive to ones religion today. Abortion was also prohibited then, but is legal today under certain conditions. The oath also only refers to men, but women today also put medicine already. Splitting fees with ones teacher and promising to support their children are also not practiced today ( Antoniou et al. 3075-7). Furthermore, such claim puts the lawfulness of passive euthanasia in question. Passive euthanasia, if defined without any refinement, means allowing one to die by not doing anything to save the individual. Yet this action is