Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lawyer Eugene Volokh argued in his article The Mechanism of the Slippery Slope that judicial logic could eventually lead to a gradual break in the legal restrictions for euthanasia, [2] while medical oncologist and palliative care specialist Jan Bernheim believes the law can provide safeguards against slippery-slope effects, saying that the ...
Joseph Fletcher, “Ethics and Euthanasia,” in Horan and Mall, eds., Death, Dying, and Euthanasia, p. 301. "People [with children with Down's syndrome ]... have no reason to feel guilty about putting a Down's syndrome baby away, whether it's "put away" in the sense of hidden in a sanitarium or in a more responsible lethal sense.
Arguments against [ edit ] One or more of these assumptions can be proven false and disarm the survival lottery thought experiment by proving that while killing and letting die can be determined as equal (hypothetically), the actual lives involved cannot be determined as equal, nor that multiple lives saved are greater than one life lost.
If euthanasia is strictly controlled, we can avoid entering a slippery slope and prevent patients from seeking alternative methods which may not be legal. [1] Arguments against include: It can lead to a slippery slope; if we allow patients this right, it can expand and have dire consequences.
The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia is a 2006 book by Neil Gorsuch. [1] The book presents legal and moral arguments against euthanasia and assisted suicide, advocating for the retention of bans on the practices. [2] It explores case histories from jurisdictions that have legalized the practice, including Oregon and the Netherlands. [3]
Utilitarianism can be used as a justification for or as an argument against suicide. For example, through Jeremy Bentham's hedonistic calculus, it can be concluded that although the death of a depressed person ends their suffering, the person's family and friends may grieve as well, and their pain may outweigh the release of depression of the ...
This is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism, [7] and it is directed against sufficiently strong versions of negative utilitarianism. [29] Many authors have endorsed this argument, [30] and some have presented counterarguments against it. Below are replies to this argument that have been presented and discussed.
The central argument of the book is an expansion of the utilitarian concept that "the greatest good of the greatest number" is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour, and Singer believes that there is no reason not to apply this principle to other animals, arguing that the boundary between human and "animal" is completely arbitrary.