Explain two arguments made by the Court concerning assisted suicide in the Glucksberg case. Are you convinced?
The court clearly stated that it is a criminal offense to attempt or commit suicide. This law was formulated to protect and preserve human life (Bosselman 113). To ensure that the right to life is respect, the law was amended to include assisted or aided suicide as a criminal offense. Thus is an individual knowingly administered drugs or supplied weapons that will be used for murder, and then he is equally guilty. Further amendments were made to protect the dignity and independence of professionals. The amendments stated that withdrawal or withholding treatment that sustains the life of an individual by his/her request does not amount to assisted suicide. This law however ruled out physician-assisted suicide. The arguments are convincing enough since they aim at protecting and preserving the life of individuals.
What are Rachel’s criteria for allowable euthanasia; do you agree?
According to Rachel, euthanasia is only allowed if and only if the victim is suffering from unbearable pain. This exception should be administered to patients who are suffering from terminal illnesses, their chances of survival are slim and they are undergoing a lot of pain. He thus stated that euthanasia should be administered if the morals behind the action were justifiable and would result in happiness and killing a patient who is suffering from a terminal illness and undergoing a lot of pain by his/her request. Personally, I think that these criteria are justifiable as they will lead to more good than bad.
Explain William’s nature-based argument concerning euthanasia. What might be an objection?
The article that was presented by William clearly states that our bodies have a natural instinct of continuing to live. That is why in our everyday life we take many precautions to ensure that we are free from danger so that we can continue living. In our everyday lives, we take a lot of care to minimize the chances of us falling into danger or compromising situations that might compromise our health. That is why we dodge trucks, take medicine, eat, drink, work out, and ensure that we live healthy lives.
Our internal body organs also work hard to ensure our well being. When we bleed, the capillaries automatically close up and fibrinogen is released to speed up the blood clotting process to prevent further bleeding. Our cells also have antibodies that kill any foreign material which may have caused harm to our body. Therefore, it is a natural instinct that we are alive and struggles by all means to survive
Euthanasia on the other hand denies us this chance by intentionally taking away our life. This can only be objected to when an individual is suffering and the chances of recovery are low. It makes all the work which our bodies have worked hard to ensure that we continue to live. As a result, euthanasia goes against the laws of nature which ensure our continued living on earth.
How does the argument concerning utility apply to the case of “Jack”? Do you think that Jack would agree?
Jack was a patient who was suffering from cancer. His infections begun from his stomach but with time it had spread to several parts of his body, including his stomach. Although he used to receive comfort from his wife, he used to undergo a lot of pain at night when his wife was no longer there to comfort him. This is because it was against the policy of the hospital to have a family of friends over at night. During this time, Jack would suffer from severe pain which caused him a lot of discomforts. The doctor could administer painkillers to him to reduce the pain but this only worked for a few hours and most of the time, he had to rely on the painkillers which he was given by the nurses to relieve his pain.
As such, Jack would have benefited from the concept of utility. The pain and suffering which he and his family were undergoing could have been solved by euthanasia. Through euthanasia, all the pain and suffering which Jack was undergoing could have been solved. Furthermore, he was the right candidate for such treatment since he was suffering from and the chances of his recovery were slim. I personally believe that if Jack was offered the option to end his life, he would have chosen it.
What is Rachel’s’ critique of the “unexpected cures” argument? Is he right?
The argument raised by Rachel about unexpected cures is something which many people hope for when they are sick or have a loved one who is terminally ill. According to this argument, it is difficult to determine when the right time to administer euthanasia is. This is because there are chances that a patient can recover from conditions which were thought to lead to his/her death. In such instances therefore it will be morally wrong to administer euthanasia as it would deny the patient more time on earth which he or she deserves. Such instances occur when a wrong diagnosis were made by a doctor or there was a mistake in the interpretation of the patient`s condition by a doctor or a cure of the condition is found through research.
However, looking at this point critically, the probability that such recoveries can occur is very low. Thus, making decisions bases on such beliefs will only result to more harm than good. Many patients have suffered while they believed that they might get better or a cure for their condition will be found. It is therefore wise to make decisions based on facts. That is why euthanasia should be used to control such pains and sufferings.
How does the story of the petrol driver illustrate the golden rule notion as applied to euthanasia according to Rachel’s?
The story of the petro driver states clearly shows the golden rule in practice. It was about a driver who was trapped inside a petrol truck that had just rolled over as a result of an accident. In the process of trying to escape, the driver noticed that he was trapped and could not get out in time. He also understood that there was little which the people who stood close by could do. He thus requested them to hit him on his head so that he can die quickly and avoid the agony of roasting to death.
If the same driver had a chance to do the same thing on another person under similar circumstances, he would have done it. This is how the golden rule applies under euthanasia. It aims at the pain of death which an individual may suffer from by making his/her death to be quick and brief.
Will voluntary euthanasia be legal in the U.S. in, say, ten years?
Voluntary euthanasia will not be legal in the U.S for a very long time. This is because it goes against all morals of life. The state has an obligation to protect and preserve the life its citizens. That is why it has formulated many rules, laws and procedures which ensure that the right to life is respected and adhered to by everyone including the individual who wants to committee suicide. Therefore, the state will be going against its ethics by legalizing voluntary euthanasia. At the same time, if euthanasia is legalized, people will not have the respect to life.
Work Cited
Bosselman, Klaus. The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance. New York: Ashgate Publishing, 2008.