1) The first two readings present autobiographies of handicapped people who are doomed to spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair. Chris Hill suffered not only from inability of doing simple actions but also from the loss of his human dignity and masculinity (as he could not be sexually active any more). Since Hill was not a religious person, he did not see a sense in these sufferings and considered his present life to be a miserable existence. He decided to take his own life because Hill believed that the most important thing is quality of life and not its quantity. Death was like a release for him.
The second author disagrees with the statement that handicapped babies are not worthwhile quality of life. She considers that this legislation leads to decriminalization of killing any disabled person. Moreover, it is like a denial of their personalities. Despite the woman’s disability from her birth, Davis managed to graduate from the university and get married. In spite of the verdict, she leads an active and happy life helping other people with disabilities. The woman could find a reason to live, unlike the first author.
According to the Christian Church, euthanasia is not acceptable because human life is valuable, and nobody except God can terminate it. Christianity teaches that sufferings constitute a special plan of God as to man’s salvation, and that is why they are not purposeless. However, patient’s refusal from risk or costly treatment is not a suicide, and remedies or painkillers with abuse or unconsciousness effect need thorough consideration.
The Dutch approach, on the contrary, puts pain relief and quality of life first. Its supporters consider it morally wrong to refuse a patient from voluntary euthanasia as it means to evade moral responsibility. Admiraal, a specialist in palliative care, claims that passive euthanasia is not humane, unlike active one. He does not share his opponents’ fears that its legalization may lead to crimes.
2) Sometimes there are cases (in medical practice, for example) when person’s life at stake and its continuation or termination is in hands of another person. Deliberately not saving a person means that one chooses the latter between life and death. Morality always implies a conscious choice between the wrong and the right. To my mind, whether it was indifference that caused such a decision or wishing that person to be dead is equally morally wrong.
On the video, the medical team as well as Richard’s relatives faced a hard choice whether it is morally right or wrong to leave a completely and permanently paralyzed person in this condition. And yet, the doctor was obliged firstly to make sure that the patient did not show any signs of mental activity. Since Richard could understand questions and answer them by moving his eyes, it was doctor’s moral and legal obligation to receive his consent for euthanasia. Otherwise, it would be like not saving the patient, and the doctor understood, first of all, the moral side of it.
In my opinion, this story is a good example of that when a doctor ought to use all means to be sure in patient’s real wish before taking such a radical decision. If a doctor ignores it, then he deliberately lets a person die, even if he indirectly participates in this process. There is no difference in making an event or allowing that event to happen if you were able to prevent it and were aware of it. In that case, though passive, but it is also an action. Therefore, there is no morally relevant difference between killing a person and deliberately not saving him.
If the article was cognitive for you, proceed to read other articles on 123HelpMe . Most of the articles are written by Zoe Adams, a professional writer.