For biomedical ethics PHIL 150 - Term Paper Example

In the first part of each article I will be explaining the arguments and the conclusions of their version of Euthanasia. In the second part of this paper I will also look at the philosophical foundation of the Euthanasia from both articles and analyze how the perspectives guide the articles to their conclusions of Euthanasia. With many variations of definitions depending on the legality and morality of a particular region, the simple definition of euthanasia is that it refers to the practice of deliberately terminating a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering (DeGrazia et al 41).

This intentional ending of life can be with the consent of the patient or even without the consent of the patient in some cases. The termination of life from the patient will mostly be done by the doctor or a physician. There has always been a rift and arguments on whether euthanasia is morally correct. This has been debated between the moral doctrines by the doctors and also by the philosophers who believe that nobody should have the capability of terminating another person’s life even if the person is ailing and the patient has no chances of getting better, they believe this is ethically wrong (DeGrazia et al 23).

Different perspectives have been put forward to argue on the different aspects of euthanasia. Two instances that come into focus in my case are the arguments by Callahan “Killing and Allowing to Die” and also an article by Miller et al. “Regulating Physician-Assisted Death”. In the case of Callahan he argues that there is quite a legitimate dissimilarity between killing and allowing to die. He goes ahead and defends the distinction by analyzing three perspectives overlapping each other in this case; metaphysical, moral and medical perspectives.

Under the metaphysical perspectives Callahan explains that the external world is distinct from the self and has its own