0171 - 432 48 55 | +49 [0] 39 43 - 922 720 | info@harz-helicopter.de

Agreement Of Euthanasia

The idea of a personal self was born in the Renaissance, where it was believed that the personal self could be worked on and perfected. It was very different from the older concepts of man that are part of a larger and unified whole. Pica della Mirandola (quoted in Proctor 1988) 16 captures the feeling: “We have made you neither from heaven nor from earth, nor immorality, so that you can shape yourself with freedom of choice and with honor, as if you were the creator and creator of yourself, in the form you prefer.” There is no need for a great conceptual leap to realize that if the self can be created, the process should be reversible: self-invention is balanced with self-destruction. Self-determination is a kind of solipsism that manifests itself at the heart of most philosophical arguments in favor of euthanasia. In discussing a topic as controversial as euthanasia, which is based on values, facts and knowledge, it is up to us to identify our underlying philosophical beliefs and assumptions. This will direct the reader to the logical line that connects the following arguments. As a solitary justification, the alleviation of suffering allows euthanasia of those who, according to this reasoning, are not able to agree for themselves: if the authorization of euthanasia must do good to mentally competent people who are suffering, it is wrong to deny them to suffering people who are not able to agree with themselves; it discriminates against them on the part of a mental disability. Thus, people with dementia or newborns with disabilities should have access to euthanasia. Moral and religious arguments: Several beliefs consider euthanasia a form of murder and morally unacceptable. Suicide is also “illegal” in some religions. Morally, there is an argument that euthanasia will weaken society`s respect for the sanctity of life. A major disagreement between supporters and opponents of euthanasia revolves around the existence of slippery slopes.

There are two types: the logical slippery slope, the extension of the circumstances in which euthanasia can be used legally and the practical slippery slope, their abuse (see Table 3). The results of the last ten years show that neither slope can be avoided.35,36 Although access to euthanasia in the Netherlands has never required people to be terminally ill, it has since its introduction to people with mental but not physical illnesses, as well as to disabled newborns and older children. In Belgium, euthanasia has recently been extended to children, one wonders whether to do the same for people with dementia and organs are taken from euthanized people for transplantation.37 Logical and practical slippery slopes are inevitable, because as soon as we cross the clear line, we must not deliberately kill another person. there is no logical stopping point.. . . .