Explain in detail GayWilliams three arguments against euthan

Explain in detail Gay-Williams\' three arguments against euthanasia. What is his argument why passive euthanasia should not be considered euthanasia?

Solution

I. “Passive Euthanasia” not Euthanasia

Gay-Williams defines Euthanasia as the intentional taking of a life of a presumably hopeless person, including oneself.

A. Passive Euthanasia: this definition excludes what we have formerly called “passive euthanasia” from being considered a form of euthanasia at all

B. Physician Assisted Suicide: physician assisted suicide--which is not traditionally considered a form of euthanasia--falls under this definition, since the definition includes suicide.

II. The Argument From Nature

P-1: All our natural bodily processes work towards the end of bodily survival. P-2: Hence survival is a natural human goal. P-3: Euthanasia leads to bodily death. P-4: Hence, euthanasia is unnatural. P-5 (Suppressed): If something is unnatural, it is immoral. C: Hence euthanasia is immoral.

III. The argument from self-interest P-1: Mistaken diagnoses and prognoses are possible, as are the discovery of new effective procedures and sudden remissions. P-2: Hence, someone may choose to be euthanized while not doing so would actually be in her own best interests. P-3 (suppressed): It is always wrong to act against your own self-interest. (Alternate: it is always wrong to act if there is a possibility you will act against your own self-interest). C: Hence, euthanasia is wrong

passive euthanasia should not be considered euthanasia because

A. Passive Euthanasia: this definition excludes what we have formerly called “passive euthanasia” from being considered a form of euthanasia at all

B. Physician Assisted Suicide: physician assisted suicide--which is not traditionally considered a form of euthanasia--falls under this definition, since the definition includes suicide.