FOR Phyllis Young ONLY Essay PHI 210: Critical Thinking 1.2

Title: Pro and Cons of Believing

Stanley Larkin

Professor Renee A. Pistone

PHI 210 – Critical Thinking

15 April 2018

After reading the excerpt from the book about the critical thinking process dubbed “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful”, I have come to realize the importance of considering the details on the other side of the coin. Thus to say, I have come to understand the ideas that I most often disagree with thereby helping me let go of my central ideas. By trying understand the ideas that I usually disagree with, I discovered that sometimes both sides of an argument can be right, or to some extent both sides often point to some wiser and larger position that can be agreed upon by many debaters. Having understood that, this paper will therefore select euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as a topic from the procon.com website in trying to practice the believing game.

Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide can be described as the deliberate action that is done for the purpose of ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. (Biggs, H. 2000) It is one of the most controversial topics worldwide and many people think differently towards it. The question that brings about argument about euthanasia is whether it should be legalized by law or not. According to my opinion and values, I strongly oppose the legalization of euthanasia by law in any country. For one, life is sacred and the only person allowed to end life is the one that freely gave it to us, God. It is therefore morally wrong for any individual to engage in assisted suicide for any person since it will disregard and weaken the sanctity of life.

I also oppose and consider it as illegal since it is against the Hippocratic Oath that medical and health practitioners undertake. Part of the original oath clearly state that "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." This oath therefore disregards and illegalizes euthanasia as an option out of suffering. (Biggs, H. 2000) Also in disregarding and opposing euthanasia can become a slippery slope since it will be misused and given to other patients who would have recovered from their pain and sicknesses. These factors among many others therefore drive me towards strong opposition of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

According to the procon.com website, there are arguments for and against the legalization of euthanasia by law in many countries. Since I oppose the euthanasia and the idea of physician assisted suicide, I will have a look at the reasons that argue for and support the legalization of euthanasia. According to Annete Childs who is a psychotherapist, death by dignity is far much more important than persistent suffering. She argues that her advocacy is driven by the knowledge of the power of sense of control over an individual’s destiny. According to her, it is much better to avoid pain and physical suffering at the end of a person’s life. Anticipatory suffering that include the fear of death might lead to depression and suffering even before death takes place. She also argues that euthanasia legalization will be like a potent medicine for those who fear prolonged death or suffering. Therefore bases her argument on death by dignity especially when there is an option out. The most helpful thing about this view is that one is given the power to control their destiny. If I believed in this view perhaps I would notice the suffering that such people undergo. This idea might be true in the sense that pain, burden and costs actually relieved from a person who will eventually die. (Keown, J. 2002)

The second reason that support euthanasia is given by Nataly Papadopoulou, LLM, PhD Candidate at the University of Leicester, who argues that the UK should use the experience from Europe and their legal rules as an example. She considers the criterion for terminal illnesses to be quite limiting in the sense that it locks out other people that also suffer from non-terminal illnesses such as people with serious mental problems. According to her this only prolongs and suffer their suffering since they are denied rights given to people with terminal illness. She wants the legalization of euthanasia in other countries just like in Europe which she describes as having a more compassionate answer to the wishes of the dying and suffering people. According to her this law will prioritize the suffering of individuals by granting them their wish. The most interesting thing about this view is that it proposes for consideration of other people with non-terminal illnesses to be granted this right. If I believed in this argument I would probably notice the misuse of this human right. This would be true under the circumstance that people would not take advantage of this right and opt for the easier way out that is assisted suicide.

The third reason arguing for legalization of euthanasia is given by Jerry Brown who is the governor of California. He bases his argument for legalization of euthanasia on his own personal wishes after putting himself in the shoe of a person who is experiencing excruciating and prolonged suffering. He argues that in as much as he has read and listened to arguments from both sides, his decision on legalization of euthanasia is driven by what he would wish for if he was in the position of a person experiencing suffering and prolonged death. He therefore considers it as a human right and hence supports the legalization of the whole idea of euthanasia and assisted suffering. The helpful thing about this argument is that it equates it human rights. If I believed in this view I would notice that perhaps it is a solution to many problems. This idea would be true and useful for the less unfortunate people who are in such situations.

In summary, after considering the arguments from the proposing side, I have come to understand their reasons in as much as I may not fully agree to all of them. This is the power of believing and letting go of any central ideas that one may always have concerning a topic.

REFERENCES

Biggs, H. (2000). Euthanasia, death with dignity and the law. Oxford: Hart.