Ferguson 1
Euthanasia Position Paper (2)
The process of Euthanasia and its moral acceptance has been discussed amongst many
philosophers, including a man named J. Gay-Williams. Using 3 main points in his article,
Williams explains his reasoning behind his belief that the act of Euthanasia is immoral and an act
of killing, not a simple medical procedure done under the consent of a patient. While he
describes how Euthanasia is beginning to make us in society devalue human life, Williams also
clarifies that this is not the main reason he believes it to be wrong. The social acceptance that
Euthanasia is gaining in society is making people think less about the actual act being performed,
and more on the relief it may bring a patient. Instead of fighting for life, humans simply say
something along the lines of, “they’d be better off dead…” and casually pull the plug on life. The
thought process behind Williams’s argument is very subconscious. An effect that takes place
gradually throughout time, and increases as euthanasia becomes more and more common in
hospitals.
There are two sides of Euthanasia. There’s the act of the patient who gives consent, and
the act of the doctor euthanizing. The question of whether or not it goes against a doctor’s moral
value is brought up, and whether or not Euthanasia is being taken too lightly. Although it’s
become more socially acceptable, Williams emphasizes that when you break it down, it’s
nothing more than an act of killing. We wonder how a doctor is able to cope with the knowledge
of the act he’s performing, or if he has to cope at all. Although a patient may give consent,
should that clear a conscience of a doctor who takes their life? Williams’s states, “…the action
must be deliberate and intentional. Thus, Euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a
presumably hopeless person.” It cannot be an accident, and it cannot be a failure. Euthanasia is a
very specific process that calls for a specific drug given in a specific way. Because of these
Ferguson 2
specifics, Williams argues there can be no way it’s morally correct. There is no socially
acceptable way to euthanize a human being.
During his discussion, Williams makes an argument against nature, and the first line in
his argument quotes, “Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living.” Plan and
simple, we all have a natural desire to live. Williams uses examples of how our bodies are
structured down to the smallest functions to help us survive. Functions our bodies perform
naturally such as blood clotting, skin healing after a cut, antibodies fighting infection, bones
repairing, every one of these functions are to help us survive. The act of Euthanasia is believed
by Williams to go against this natural desire, and makes us subconsciously lose our dignity and
less aware of our instinct. “Our dignity comes from seeking our ends. When one of our goals is
survival, and actions are taken that eliminate that goal, then our natural dignity suffers.” This is
directed more toward the doctor or person performing the euthanasia, and how we are able to
accept this procedure as a possible way to end a life. Can euthanasia be compared to suicide, so
when the going gets tough we simply pull the plug on life? The very option of Euthanasia
belittles our human dignity and our fight for survival. If our dignity is being brought down, is
that why euthanasia is becoming more socially acceptable? Williams believes this is true. That
the act against nature makes us see our family members and other humans as something less than
a human. Something with less dignity than it truly does have.
Losing our dignity and natural inclination to live is not the only reason Williams believes
Euthanasia to be wrong, but the standards behind the reasoning, There is a conscience involved
during Euthanasia, the conscience of the doctor and the conscience of the patient, but the actual
performance alone is proved to be wrong according to Williams. The argument of self-interest is
brought up, Williams considers the possibility of an incorrect diagnosis, and therefore dying
Ferguson 3
needlessly. For example, if a lady is told she has 6 months to live and there is nothing that may
be done to treat her, she may choose euthanasia over living out those 6 months in a miserable
condition. Williams recognizes the possibility of a misdiagnosis. Is there by some slight chance
the doctor was wrong? The thought process of the woman being treated may not be thinking the
way Williams does, and she may see her life as an end and lose her natural dignity. Human error
is as natural as our instinct to survive, and perhaps because of Euthanasia we’re putting too much
trust into our doctors.
An emphasis on the permanence of death is shown throughout this argument, ad how
something such as euthanasia, an irreversible process, may be taken too casually. Miracles in
medicine occur naturally and very often as time goes by and “the very presence of the possibility
of euthanasia may keep us from surviving when we might,” according to Williams. Euthanasia
eliminates the opportunity for these miracles to continue, and instead we’re accepting death as an
escape instead of allowing ourselves to discover new solutions.
As an argument to Williams’s position, I want to use the example of increases in
medicine and why these improvements and discoveries come about. The challenge of human
health and the way we are constantly fighting viruses, bacteria, and cancers are the reasons we
continue to create medications and decrease the pain of a natural human life. Pain and suffering
are a natural step that all human beings will experience sooner or later. Ultimately, with
medications and miracles in surgery, we are challenging death.
I view Euthanasia as a timeline in history. In the past, Euthanasia wasn’t even an option.
Suffering through pain was the only way, other than suicide or other traumatic means, to make it
to our “ending” destination which we as humans will all face. It’s inescapable. Through time and
medical history, euthanasia was discovered. Presently, we have Euthanasia as a legal option, and
Ferguson 4
have created more calming way to “put one to sleep,” so a more peaceful “ending” can be had. In
the future perhaps, a cure to the diseases one must suffer will be discovered. Euthanasia will no
longer be needed or given as an option because a cure will substitute, but that day is not today.
We are still discovering new medications, and challenging death. Williams stated in his
argument, “The very presence of the possibility of euthanasia may keep us surviving when we
might,” and I disagree. I believe the very presence of the possibility of euthanasia may push us to
survive when we naturally could not. As Williams’s states, we as humans have a desire, and a
drive to survive. The reason we push ourselves to make improvements in medicine is because
new health issues arrive that challenge our human survival. Euthanasia isn’t a disease, it’s an aid,
and it can be used to put an end to the suffering of those who won’t live naturally to see a
medical miracle come about. They are in the present on the timeline, and should not have to
suffer through to hope for a future. Yes misdiagnosis will occur, yes human error is possible, but
that is the natural course of life. By not allowing human beings to have the choice of a peaceful
“end,” the natural course is only being challenged more, and the natural course is what will lead
to medical improvements.
It would be selfish to keep a human who wishes to use the medical discovery of
euthanasia alive just because there could’ve possibly been a misdiagnosis. There could always be
the possibility of a misdiagnosis, and there will always be the possibility of a cure to diseases
that would naturally end our lives. Euthanasia is not an “end,” it is an aid to help those who are
experiencing presently incurable diseases and pains. Those natural break downs that our bodies
experience are the “end,” and those will never be escapable. As Williams’s states, “Death is
final…” but it’s the challenge of death that will press humans to find cures for these natural ends.