Euthanasia- "Argument from Nature"

137-138). As he states, euthanasia violates humans' ultimate goal of survival as well as the dignity that comes from the knowledge of this ultimate goal. This, essentially, is Gay-W unfitiams' " disceptation from Nature."

Gay-Williams in like manner takes lot to define euthanasia. He argues that it does not include accidental killings of terminally ill people. He also excludes from the definition deaths that occur when checkup treatment is not implemented when there is no well-founded hope that such treatment will be intent-saving. Gay-Williams notes that the trial to act in some cases has been called "passive euthanasia" (p. 137). He argues, however, that it is not euthanasia because the death is not the aim of the misery to act. Gay-Williams calls such a death an "unintended consequence" and an "unintended dying" due to the failure to act. For Gay-Williams, therefore, the failure to act when face with a terminally ill psyche is not euthanasia, as compared to any act that hastens the death of such terminally ill person.

This exclusion of "passive euthanasia," however, raises a achievable objection to Gay-Williams' "Argument from Nature." Gay-Williams' argument seems to say, essentially, that euthanasia is wrong because it violates human nature, which he sees as a earthy tilt toward survival. He believes, therefore, that people should moreover interfere in the inseparable course o

f human life to assist, not hinder, this natural inclination toward survival. But how can choosing not to act to adjudicate to continue a human life not also violate this natural inclination? If an Olympic Champion bather sees a man drowning and does not enter the water to save him, would not the swimmer be guilty of violating the drowning man's dignity and natural human inclination? Of course, the swimmer might not be legally guilty but, under Gay-Williams' argument, does not the swimmer dupe a responsibility to try to save the drowning man?

Doctors and checkup science try to succor people survive by helping the human body's power to help itself. Whether or not a person is terminally ill should not reckon in whether the doctors choose to use this science. If a doctor knows somebody is terminally ill, but chooses not to use all possible life-saving measures, is he not like the Olympic swimmer who chooses not to use his skills to save the drowning man? Gay-Williams seems to argue that in both(prenominal) cases the doctor and the swimmer are not guilty of euthanasia because they did not intend the person's death; it is not their aim that the person should die. But in both cases they surely know that the person will die and they choose not to act to help the person's natural inclination toward survival. Therefore, they violate that person's dignity and natural inclination to survive.

This objection is successful to the extent that Gay-Williams does not and cannot define a point at which choosing not to act to save someone's life moves from sparing the person to killing the person. Different doctors can often have differen
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!