Dr. Gwamna
Comp II
2/1/10
The Fight to Stop help Suicide/Euthanasia
Legalized Euthanasia would not withdraw to Involuntary Killing. is by James D. Torr. He is a publish author and an editor of childrens books and young adult books. Some of the create credits of James D. Torr include Genetic Engineering. He writes on issues of a controversial nature. In his article he talks about how society has a slippery run argument against euthanasia. Slippery slope arguments against euthanasia hold that if voluntary, physician-assisted self-destruction is allowed in certain cases, it exit inevitably be allowed in cases that are not as clear-cut, and eventually there will be an unstoppable army of euthanasia-happy doctors running the nations hospitals. Once terminally ill patients are allowed access to assisted suicide, the argument goes; no amount of vigilance can prevent the ensuing bloodshed. Women, the disabled, the poor, the elderly, and whatsoever number of minority groups will become victims of forced euthanasia, or so Americans are told. He says that Legalized Euthanasia will not evolve to full blown killing of patients.
Now if this scenario sounds alarmist, thats because it is. Slippery slope arguments are designed to play on peoples fears. But where is the evidence that such nightmarish scenarios are infallible? There isnt any evidence.
People who agree with the article supra compare it to Nazi Germany. They have no proof still what the Nazis themselves sancti championd as murder under the name euthanasia. As philosopher Daniel Callahan explains, The Nazi experience is only partially relevant. Theirs was not a move from legal voluntary euthanasia to involuntary killing. They neer had the first phase at all, but went straight to the killing.(Larue)
I also think another fallacy utilize in this paper is extreme emotional appeal. They take one of the most extreme horrific events...
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment