Does man have a lawful or ethical right to die? Some one who is against euthanasia could argue that a person who practiced this would be "playing God". Those who wish to defend euthanasia can argue back that euthanasia stops a persons suffering. Also, suppose a cure is found or modern medical technologies can assist a person who is suffering. I believe that euthanasia is a subject that is far too complex to choose and defend only one side.
First, when euthanasia is proposed one of the first arguments said is that the persons" who are participating are "playing God"? Some will argue that euthanasia is "infringing upon God's will". Meaning, when a person is going to die their body will be overcome with illness and disease, and the person's organs and whole body will shutdown. Therefore, "God's will" would be acknowledged as "man's physical and biological nature". According to this notion God's power would be taken from him if someone chose euthanasia. If those who believe it took the idea that people were "playing God" seriously, then logically there could be no more technological or medical advancements. In other words, any curable diseases or viruses could not be treated because it would be considered wrong. So, it would be against God's will to use technology and medical techniques to help even the slightest cold. For those who believe man's physical and biological nature is identified with God's will, would have to wait and let nature take its course. It would be improper and immoral for them to step in and take matters into their own hands, whether they are curing themselves or loved ones (Maguire 328).
Page2.
Second, euthanasia is defined as: painless killing to end suffering; the act of killing somebody who has an incurable illness or injury. It is seen as cruel to let a helpless animal suffer, so we "put them to sleep". Why is it okay to relieve an animal and not a human if both are clearly suffering? Naturally, the argument is clear, an animal is by no means a man.
