Is the Statement on Capital Punishment or Euthanasia True or False - Essay Example

Is the ment on Capital Punishment or euthanasia True or false? The ment made by Callahan in asserting that there is not moral distinction between killings and allowing dying is not true. Because morally is it wrong to kill a person because every person has a right to life however, a person can be allowed to die if the cause of death is a disease or another factor that causes death (Mappes, David & Jane, 73). Therefore, there is a moral distinction between killing and allowing dying. It is true that the Suicide Tourist and The Coumbias’ story tell stories of people who went to Switzerland seeking assisted death. The Suicide Tourist was tired of having ALS, and he was tired of living, as he could no longer bear the suffering the suicide tourist was helped to die (John & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation). However, the Coumbias were not granted the legal authorization to have assisted death as Betty died of Cancer while George lives and still suffers from heart disease. It is true that capital punishment should be abolished because killing for any reason is morally wrong. Every person has the right to life as provided for under the constitution. Additionally, although it has been held that capital punishment deters other criminals from committing similar crimes death penalty should not be a way to deter such crimes (Mappes, David & Jane, 77). When people are incarcerated in prison for the rest of their lives, it means that they will not come back to the society and for that reason; life imprisonment should be an alternative for the death penalty. It is true that legalizing any form of active euthanasia will create more harm than good because assisting another person to commit suicide is not only morally wrong but affects the person assisting the death. For example, when active euthanasia is allowed it decreases the hope of an individual getting better, which in turn conflicts with modern medicine. Additionally, there will be increased fear of doctors and medicine because when people go to the hospital they go to get better and not to die (Mappes, David & Jane, 75). Therefore, in legalizing active euthanasia there is pressure on the patient to please his family members, as well as, decide what is for their best interest. It is not true that if Massachusetts had passed the Death with Dignity Act in 2012 it would have become the first state to pass a state referendum that allowed voluntary active euthanasia. It follows the fact that Oregon voters voted for the same act in 1998. Additionally, other states that have passed a law through the congress, and they include Washington, New Mexico and Vermont. However, in Montana active euthanasia was allowed through court ruling. Therefore, the state congress in the three states decided on whether to allow the voluntary active euthanasia, where in some areas the law was allowed by voters. It is true that the central claim of the Best Bet argument guarantees that the executed murderer will never kill anyone again although it does not deter other people from committing murder. It has been established that criminals will fear the intensity of the death penalty and for that reason, they will be afraid of committing murder. However, in some cases some people find pleasure in murdering others and for that reason, this argument is true. If it were to be guaranteed that the murderers would not commit the same crime repeatedly then there would be no reason for the death penalty. It is true that Brock and Callahan agree with his colleagues in their claim that the moral center of medicine allows professional doctors to perform active euthanasia (Mappes, David & Jane, 90). The argument is based in the fact that it is morally wrong to deny a terminally ill patient their wish where they request that their life should be ended in order to avoid future suffering and indignity. Additionally, the wishes of a person should be respected as long as they do not interfere with rights of other people. It is argued that since nobody is harmed by a terminally ill patient their suffering should be ended and their decision to terminate their life should be respected. It is not true that it was decided that capital punishment for comes of murder and rape were constitutional in the case of Gregg v. Georgia. This is because under the Constitution of the United States under the Eighth Amendment murder is considered a cruel and unusual punishment because it failed to accord with the evolving standards of decency (Mappes, David & Jane, 104). Cruel and unusual pain was defined to mean that which involves the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, as well as, which is exceptionally out of proportion to the cruelty of the crime. Therefore, it means that states were not allowed to include capital punishment in their judicial processes. It is true that Primoratz argues that the social utility provides a justification for the use of capital punishment because it deters first-degree offenders from committing crimes. Therefore, it is important to impose harsh punishment to ensure that criminals feel the fear of committing crimes that would land them a harsh punishment. However, it has been argued that although there are some truths behind the deterrence of criminals using death sentences there is no proof to establish that the death penalty is better than incarceration. It is true that Nathanson would say that terrorist who murder civilians deserve to be executed because people are afraid of their life being taken away from them. In that, if a person were to be imprisoned for 20 years for severe crimes they can manage to conduct themselves properly in during imprisonment and get out on parole (Mappes David & Jane, 110). However, when a person is given a death penalty it means that their life is being taken away; hence, deterring them from committing further crimes. For that reason, Nathanson would say that all terrorist should be executed to deter them. It is true that in the case of Atkins v. Virginia that the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute a person who was younger than fourteen years of age. A person who is at the age of fourteen is a minor and cannot be executed as an adult. Additionally, the court stated that executing the mentally retarded person was in violation of the Eighth Amendment. It is not true that Nathanson and Reitman agree that not executing murderers would teach a lesson about wrongfulness of murder, as well as, discourage people from the resort to violence to settle conflicts. This is because with death penalty comes the fear of committing crimes; therefore, the two are in agreement that death penalty should be imposed depending on the severity of the crime to ensure that people are deterred from committing crimes. It is true that in case Active euthanasia was to be legalized many requests made by the patients would not be voluntary because they may do it out of pressure of being a burden to the family. This is because where an individual is terminally ill people tend to take all their time and money in taking care of the patients (Mappes, David & Jane, 77). For that reason, some patients may feel that they have become a burden to their family members. Therefore, instead of being a good thing for the patient they may be doing for the benefit of their family not because they want to die. It is true that in this time and age capital punishment should be abolished in the United States because many innocent people may be executed for crimes they have not committed (Emmanuel). This is because with the introduction of new technology to discover or determine the cause of death sometimes there are conflicts in evidence where wrong evidence may be admitted in court which may turn out not to be the actual evidence. Therefore, this may result to social injustices in the society. It is true to say that laws that aid dying should be abolished because of the dangers that they pose not only to the patient, but also to the doctors (Mappes, David & Jane, 109). The laws create a notion that instead of getting well in hospital people go there to die. Therefore, any laws that allow any kind of active euthanasia should be abolished. It is true that in Holland, Switzerland, Washington and Oregon any person who is asking for either PAS or VAE should be in uncontrollable amount of pain where even the physicians do not see hope of the patient getting better. In some cases, some patients may ask for voluntary active euthanasia even in circumstances when there is hope in both medicine and cure of the disease. It is true that human life is important, and it should not be taken away from a person because of a crime they have committed. In that, everything should be left as it is to ensure that persons live their life up to the time that God decides to take away their life. Life is scared and even in situations where a person has committed a crime they should be allowed to severe a life sentence until the time that their life ends. It is true that the passive euthanasia is not legally allowed anywhere in the United Sates for patients who have been found to be incompetent. They do not have the capacity to understand that withdrawing from treatment is harmful to them. Therefore, for patients found acting in such a manner they should be incarcerated to ensure that they take their medication until the time they get better. It is true that Emanuel in his opinion opposes all forms of euthanasia even those that involve passive euthanasia and indirect euthanasia (Mappes, David & Jane, 130). This is because he believes that life is sacred, and people should live it to the fullest ensuring that nobody takes away their life. By so doing, people are allowed to live up to the time that is intended for them. It is not true that at all times people who ask for PAS and VAE are in terrible physical pain that cannot be controlled. This is because in the case of the Coumbias Betty the wife did not have any underlying condition and the husband only suffered from a heart disease that is treatable and controlled under modern medicine as he is still alive today. References Emmanuel, Ezekiel J. "Whose Right to Die?" The Atlantic. The Atlantic, 1 Mar. 1997. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. . John D, and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. "The Suicide Plan | PBS." FRONTLINE. FRONTLINE, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. . John D, and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. "The Suicide Tourist | FRONTLINE | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. FRONTLINE, 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. . Mappes, Thomas A, David DeGrazia, and Jane S. Zembaty. Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print. Read More