s. Nowell-Smith looks at moral right based and utilitarian theories. The right of not to be killed can be argued against by the right to want to end living. He provides an example of euthanasia societies where a lot of older people who still enjoy live just have a desire to have an opportunity to end their lives the way they want to. The fear of being helpless and slowly dying in the institutions drives these people to join these societies and ask for a law to be changed. Nowell-Smith also makes an argument against Law Reform Commission of Canadas report Euthanasia, Suicide and Cessation of Treatment that suggests that euthanasia laws should not be changed. One of the arguments is that it may go out of control and could lead to serious abuses and mistakes. Nowell-Smith argues that it can be controlled stating the example of Dutch system where voluntary active euthanasia practices only in hospitals and where everything is considered before any action is done so there is no mistake. Then he moves to discussing differences between passive and active euthanasia. He argues against Commission that states that seriously disabled infants should not have their lives sustained if their lives are likely to contain more suffering and frustrated desires than happiness and satisfactions. (CMI, p.27) Nowell-Smith argues that passive euthanasia is still killing and it is probably more merciful to help the child die quickly and without pain than let it die slowly and probably painfully. Therefore if Commission considers allowing passive euthanasia wouldnt it be more merciful to permit active euthanasia?PART B: CRITIQUE Considering the points summarized above I believe that Nowell-Smith is in favor of legalizing euthanasia and he believes that changes in law are urgent and people deserve the right to decide when and how to die. He provides strong arguments in his article, enough for a reader who doesnt have a strong opinion to agree with the ...
