Moral Issues That Divide Us Analysis

Words: 547
Pages: 3

Imagine watching a family member slowly deteriorate, constantly in pain and suffering. This not only puts a burden on the family, but also on the one who is in pain. There is a solution to this problem many families face in this generation and that is euthanasia. While some think humans should not be able to decide when they die, people who are suffering and are about to die should have the right to end their lives because no person deserves to suffer, and it will lessen the burden on family members.
First, those opposing euthanasia believes it is not a human right and is considered illegal suicide. They believe that it is not a person's place to decide when they can die. Joel Feinberg states in James Fieser’s article “Moral Issues that Divide Us,” that people's inalienable right to life means that everyone has the right to end their own life if they feel it is in their best interest, (utm.edu). This shows that according to our inalienable rights we have the choice to live or die. In James Fieser’s article “Moral Issues that Divide Us,” he states that dying people choose euthanasia, (utm.edu). This is therefore not suicide because the ill patient is making the decision to die and the decision is made under the consent of the law.
…show more content…
Most people suffering a terminal illness would end their pain if given the choice. As J. Pereira’s states in his article “Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: the Illusions of Safeguards and Controls,” after conducting a study with 200 terminally ill patients they found only 8% wished to wait out their passing (ncib.nlm.gov). This show that the ill patients are in pain and it would be cruel to keep someone who wishes to pass alive. David Humes states in James Fieser’s article “Moral Issues that Divide Us,” that the ill are not taking their lives because it is worth living out, (utm.edu). This means they believe the rest of their life is invaluable if they are in