Frequently the euthanasia debate is set up in terms of the religious (anti) and non-religious (pro). The following article sets out 7 common pro-euthanasia arguments and then gives \u2018non-religious\u2019 replies to them. It also reviews the ethical arguments and the empirical evidence from the Netherlands and Oregon. A very stimulating read.<\/p>\n
[The media\u2019s] coverage of the issue (physician assisted suicide-euthanasia) often consists of milking viewers’ emotions in favour of decriminalization and implying that any opposition must rest solely on religious belief, particularly of a “fundamentalist” stripe.<\/p>\n
This paper aims to promote a more accurate and informed understanding of the issues. It sets out seven arguments which are commonly advanced by advocates of decriminalization and offers corresponding counter-arguments. The arguments for decriminalization undoubtedly merit a reply. However, as will become apparent, cogent replies are available. Moreover, these replies need rest on no religious basis<\/span>, “fundamentalist” or otherwise. The aim of the paper is to provide anyone interested in this pressing debate with a clear overview of the arguments, and to suggest that the case for decriminalization is far less persuasive than is often thought. It concludes that relaxing the law would be a serious mistake which would hinder rather than help the urgent task of improving care for the sick and the dying.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Article, \u2018Should We Legalize Voluntary Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide? – A Review of the Ethical Arguments and of the Empirical Evidence from the Netherlands and Oregon\u2019<\/a>
\nby John Keown, MA DPhil PhD<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Frequently the euthanasia debate is set up in terms of the religious (anti) and non-religious (pro). The following article sets out 7 common pro-euthanasia arguments and then gives \u2018non-religious\u2019 replies to them. It also reviews the ethical arguments and the … Continue reading