Choosing Death

**Describe Peter Singer’s arguments on the topic and your thoughts about how he has argued his case. Give at least two examples from the essay you have chosen.

Peter Singer argues the case of Euthanasia and how everyone should get to have the choice of ending their life. He raises some great arguments for why this should be the case such as the first which is based on the ethical implications. He specifically talks about a quote derived straight from Gillian Bennet. The quote was as follows: “Bennett’s decision was also ethical because, as the reference to “the country’s money” suggests, she was not thinking only of herself.” He further validates his point with a second argument as he talks about how she was a burden. He says “patients would feel pressured to end their lives in order to avoid being a burden to others.” Furthermore, he says “If somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state,” she argued, “then I think they too should be allowed to die.” which is another good point. Personally, one thing I really liked about his piece of text was how he uses real life stories and uses the words of a real person of what they go through to make a stronger argument. He does this and we as readers feel more connected to the story and have a personal connection to the argument.

Explain how debate around the topic has evolved since the publication of Singer’s essay. Has he said or written more about this topic? What have others said? Include at least two references to other sources.

There are multiples sources online where people share their opinion euthanasia and people put forward excellent cases on euthanasia and if it is a good idea or if t’s a bad idea. People have put forward interesting arguments such as BBC where they said as an argument against euthanasia that it could lead to involuntary euthanasia, which means that people are often unaware of the decision that has been made. Euthanasia has been made legal in only a handful of countries. According to online sources, it has been made legal in 8 countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, Colombia and the USA. In terms of how the debate over the topic has evolved, I would say that countries around the world are now legalising some forms of euthanasia, whether it is passive euthanasia, assisted death or the other forms. The world renowned website, Wikipedia, shows us a large list of counties who haven’t exactly legalised euthanasia, however, they have some form of euthanasia legalised. The Guardian, also talks about countries and how they legalise a form of euthanises. They talk about the USA in particular by saying that though euthanises may not be legal in some cases the guardian says that “Doctors are allowed to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to terminally ill patients in five US states. Euthanasia, however, is illegal. In recent years, the "aid in dying" movement has made incremental gains.”

Finally, describe your own views on the topic, presenting at least two arguments for them.

This is an extremely controversial topic and it can be difficult for me to share my opinions over the subject at hand as I am a Jain and I am a believer in Jainism where people don’t believe that this sort of stuff should be allowed. However, personally I do believe in the motion of euthanises and that it should be legalised.

My first argument for why I believe that this should be the case is because sometimes people who aren’t as physically enabled as you and I per se may see no point in further living as what sort of life will they live when they cannot perform everyday actions by themselves. If you look at the subject from a quadriplegics point of view, they are simply not able to perform normal, everyday actions themselves and the simplest task such as excretion cannot be done themselves, you can see why someone in this case would want to spend their life. Would you feel that there is a purpose to continue living at this point? Of course there are some people in the scenario who do want to continue living and that’s great, however, in most cases people aren’t exactly looking forward for the rest of their lives living in this condition and so I believe that in this case euthanises should definitely be an option they are allowed to explore.
The second point is a matter of “who needs it most?” as in some cases it can be extremely expensive to continue treatment or living when you are in a bad condition and you could raise the question “Could this money be well spent in another place? Is there someone who needs it more?” Of course in this case, just as any other, it is the victims choice wether or not they want to be euthanised, but denying them the right to euthanasia and continuing to provide them with health care and keeping them on equipment may be costly to someone else who is in need of the equipment more and could benefit from it more. In this case, people should definitely be allowed to euthanise themselves as an act of goodness to help a person who needs the help more. Once again I raise the fact that in this case, as in all euthanasia cases, the victim should decide whether or not they actually want to be euthanised. A person shouldn’t be the victim of involuntary euthanises to save someone else when they haven’t given their consent or even been made aware of the situation.

Of course this whole topic is extremely controversial and the ethical implications are massive. People have arguments for both sides and raise good points for both sides, but I personally believe that euthanasia should be legalised and is a good idea. This of course only being the case when a person is mentally stable and is in a good state of mind to make this key decision, or what can be considered to be the most important decision in their lives.


You'll only receive email when they publish something new.

More from Arav
All posts