Debate for Australia euthanasia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Debate for Australia mercy killing - Essay ExampleThe in truth(prenominal) put one across is held by the Islamic religion (Bulow et al., 2008). Therefore, the opponents view legalization of euthanasia as being fast and against Gods commandment since it does not sanctify heart. However, the proponents call for responded by arguing that legalizing euthanasia pull up stakes actually uphold human dignity. They cause deald that no person should be allowed to undergo torture from last illness. Such continuous pain, they have pointed out, which medicine has no control over degrades human dignity and defeats the very logic for continuing to live. Therefore, euthanasia will do more good than harm (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). In addition, they have also said that the society is built on fundamental values of compassion and mercy. The society should therefore rise to the occasion and help the terminally ill from suffering unbearably without all help (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). mercy kil ling as murder versus right(a)-based literary arguments The opponents have viewed legalization of euthanasia has a commission to commit murder. They have argued that any action intended to take away an early(a) persons life is inherently untimely and should never be allowed even if the victim has given the consent (Somerville, 2003). Euthanasia has therefore been viewed has killing of other human beings and fervently opposed on those grounds. On the other hand, the proponents have made an argument against this view by pointing out to the principles of autonomy and self-determination. The argument has been that a patient has a right to his or her life and therefore can determine on how he or she should die (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010 Kerridge, Lowe & Stewart, 2009). The autonomy principle allows... The argument has been that a patient has a right to his or her life and therefore can determine on how he or she should die (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010 Kerridge, Lowe & Stewart, 2009). The autonomy principle allows a patient of sound mind to realise any last pertaining to his or her life as long as such a decision does nobody any harm (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). Along this line, it is argued that a patient has a right to determine when he or she no longer wants to live. It is further argued that, due to the principle of autonomy, a patient has a right to his or her own decisions and equally a right to a dignified death (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010). In general, the proponents argue that by patients being denied the right to euthanasia, the society is actually tramping upon their (patients) rights and forcing decisions on them (patients) which they (patients) do not necessarily depute to. In other word, the insistence on the sustenance of the status quo in reference to legalization of euthanasia is a continued violation of patients rights and thus those of human rights. How have the opponents responded to these accusations of violating human rights specifically the princi ples of autonomy? The proponents have come out strongly and fiercely claiming that actually allowing euthanasia is an abuse of autonomy and human rights adverse to what the proponents have said. The opponents have argued that the principle of autonomy advocates for conditions that favor autonomy. Any attempt to suppress any condition.