Euthanasia has been subject of controversy since antiquity, but 3000 years later it still seems to be highly debated among contemporary ethicists and philosophers. The main purpose of this essay is to investigate under which circumstances euthanasia could be morally permissible, by highlighting and discussing the most debated objections against it. The first objection brings up the problem of how we can be sure that a wish to die is confident and final. This objection is followed by a discussion about the risks of administering euthanasia incorrectly. The second objection concerns whether voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide really is necessary. Here, the main question is whether people about to die would be harmed rather than helped if they had euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide available as an alternative. The third section discusses the doctrine of double effect. Here, the main purpose is to investigate where DDE stands in relation to cases of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Furthermore, the final two objections concern the parallel between killing and letting die, and second of all the slippery-slope argument in connection with euthanasia. The essay concludes with a discussion about the ways in which practicing euthanasia can be harmful, as well as a more detailed debate about the sustainability of the objections mentioned above.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:liu-157298 |
| Date | January 2019 |
| Creators | Pettersson, Ellinor |
| Publisher | Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för kultur och kommunikation |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0014 seconds