Please provide an ethical arguement against this...?

Question

If a non-human animal was enduring excruciating amounts of pain and suffering, would a reasonable person not euthanize the animal in order to end its suffering immediately? Why then would a reasonable person not extend the same consideration to a suffering human?

NOT regarding religious values and laws, just reason why someone might object to this logic.

This is assuming that the patient has an illness that is incurable, will result in death. The patient is a baby who's suffering increases by the day and who, all doctors that examined her, has been determined that she will die before reaching an age where she can make a decision.

Answer 1

Because the euthanizing of humans is a slippery slope that most are not ready to slide down.
A dog hurts. It can't know why it hurts only that it does. Now, I know you choose a baby for the reason the baby cannot yet reason. However, in fact, I am speculating that you want it far more universal in application. The problem with that is how far does it go before, granny is sick and not going to survive, and the kids see that their future money is being spent on granny. So, they pressure her to take the easy and cheap way out. $$$$. What might be the allowance for the relief of pain, leads to economic situations.

Answer 2

Because even though the human is suffering today, there is nothing to say that tomorrow there won't be a cure or an end to the suffering. As humans we have hope for the future. Life, no matter how crappy the life, is precious -- every second of it. Since we do not know if there is anything beyond death, as humans we fight for every second of our life. That baby who is suffering, if he/she could make the decision to live in pain with the chance that a cure / a relieving of the pain might happen OR die and maybe totally cease to exist, would decide to continue to live.

Answer 3

Humans are not animals. And by not regarding faith issues you untie your question to reason and truth. The truth about humans being creatures with an eternal spirit. But I'll try to reason around that.

My concern, all values aside isn't that the situation you have described is not reasonable one to end the life of another, but rather how the act of ending lives under these circumstances will be reinterpreted upon other forms of debilitating "illness".

I don't trust mankind with that kind of decision making. Next thing you know we are killing unwanted children (oops..already do that ..called abortion.) Killing the elderly (they are only taking up space). Killing the mentally ill (they have no chance at a "normal" life). Killing races of people we deem less (oops..isn't that what Hitler was doing).

Logic dictates that matter in this world undergoes entropy over time. Man's reasoning is no different, it is easily swayed.

Suffering is a part of life, we are not the first people to witness it and wish for it not to be. But without the blind, people don't appreciate sight. Without dark, we don't appreciate light.

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

If the human can respond, then we should respect its wishes to live or die in what appears to be pain. If it can't, then we must refer to any instructions that person left behind. If such instructions don't exist, then it goes to custody. If no one has custody, or no one is attempting to get it, then doctors have an obligation to keep the person alive. They must because they took the Hippocratic Oath to become a doctor. The reason is because even though it seems safe to assume that a person suffering would want to end it, even if death is the only answer, you can't know for sure and you don't want to take the chance the person does still want to live. You can't take back killing someone to end their suffering.

Answer 5

Before I begin, I can tell you that I feel that people should have the right to choose whether they live or die especially if they are doomed to a long and painful death. Now, to euthanize them without their consent, like an animal, not so much.

WIth that being said, a person who commits suicide is considered mentally unstable, and for some who believe that God is the only one who gets to decide who lives and dies (Please explain the death penalty to me), no one should be allowed to take their own life.

Unfortunately, the arguements throughout history have been mostly about religion. These religious arguments have led to the laws we have now. Most people can't argue the point without arguing religion much like abortion.

Answer 6

As Pope John Paul The 2nd said it is all about the way we live our lives and pain is part of it.