Rguing about why Euthanasia is moral right

This paper is suppose to argue a paper from my class. THE ESSAY YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO ARGUE Is ON THE BOTTOM.
This Philosophy paper is suppose have a very strong argument on one side being very absract.
It will need to have strong arguments that can be back up strongly with good reasons supporting it.
The only source i need is the book The Philosophy Gym (25 short adventures in thinking) written by stephen law


Is Euthanasia Morally Wrong?

Where do the boundaries between morality and immorality lie? Is there a certain point where boundaries no longer matter? How about when it comes to death? Painful or not, death should be prevented under all circumstances. The definition of euthanasia is the  practice of terminating the life of a person or an animal because they are perceived as living an intolerable life, in a painless or minimally painful way either by lethal injection, drug overdose, or the withdrawal of life support (Wikipedia). There are also three types of euthanasia: involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia is when it takes place over the objection of the patient; this way is usually considered murder. Nonvoluntary is when it  occurs without the fully informed consent and fully informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate (Wikipedia). Lastly, voluntary is when it happens with the informed consent of the patient, this might be seen as a happy death.
To many people, the very concept of euthanasia seems morally wrong, even the idea that one can choose when to take ones own life. However, how does one define morality? Is it merely a socially constructed idea or are we born with it ingrained in our consciousness? According to Stephen Law, author of The Philosophy Gym,  It s as if we view the world through morality spectacles: the value that we think is objectively part of the world  out there is actually added by emotional spectacles through which we re looking (Law 218). So in this case, morality is different for everyone, and there are not set rules that state what is right or wrong, only our emotions that influence our decisions and tell us where to draw the line between morality and immorality. In The Philosophy Gym, there is an example given of an alien not being able to understand why a man stealing someone s purse is wrong, because wrongness is not something that you can see with your eyes, it is something that is taught and learned in society. However, euthanasia is much more drastic than stealing a purse, it is the idea of taking someone s life. One can usually buy a new purse, but humans are only given one life to live. To take that away is to violate the rights of humanity, and I believe that if euthanasia is allowed than society might as well allow abortion, suicide, and murder of any kind because we are not punishing those that take away the lives of these patients.
However, there is an argument that supports the idea of euthanasia called pluralism and uncertainty, and  Being troubled by pluralism means recognizing the possibility that there are many correct senses of right and wrong& and so there may not be one true or absolute right or wrong (Rockwell 84). One reason that people use euthanasia is because the patient might be in unbearable pain, facing their inevitable death and see it as a peaceful, merciful way to die. Another reason is that the patient might be in a vegetative state, or mentally unable to respond, and so euthanasia is a way of speeding up the process if there is no chance that they will ever recover. On the other hand, there is an article in the New Scientist magazine that writes of the  miraculous recovery of a man who spent 19 years in a minimally conscious state (Phillips 1). So even though euthanasia might be considered a mercy killing or a process of speeding up the supposed inevitable, there are cases such as this that show a patient might actually recover from a vegetative state and then the doctor might be destroying that chance for the patient to revive and live out the rest of his life.
Euthanasia is also a violation of another person s  ends , which are their values and points of view, and one should allow a person to  pursue their purposes, desires, and images of happiness without interference (Rockwell 88). Involuntary euthanasia is when it is done against the patient s, or surrogate to the patient s will. So they are choosing life, despite the pain or immobility or comatose state that they are in, and so interfering with that is a violation of that person s  ends. This is also the same for non-voluntary, in which the doctor performing the euthanasia does it without the knowledge, let alone the objection or consent of the patient. The patient or surrogate of the patient does not even get the choice to choose between life or death it is simply and cruelly taken and it is interfering with not only the patients  ends , but also the  ends of their family and friends and everyone affected by his/her death. Voluntary euthanasia might not interfere with the patient s or surrogate s  ends , because they are pursuing their desire and what will make them happy, but they are interfering with the  ends of their family and friends and loved ones, everyone that does not want them to die and who values their life on this earth and who will be deeply hurt by the loss.
Euthanasia is morally wrong because it is detrimental to the human race, and the doctor is taking someone s life in his or her own hands, not in the way of surgery or a broken leg, but in deciding to seize that persons right to live. It is a violation of their  ends in order to satisfy a means; even a purse that is stolen can be retrieved, but a human life can never be taken back, it is final.

Works Cited
1) Law, Stephen. The Philosophy Gym. New York: Thomas Dunne Books,
St. Martin s Press, 2003.

2)  Euthanasia. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 4 December 2006.

4) Rockwell, Teed. Philosophy 101: Critical Thinking. Fall 2006