Details  
 
   

  • 4 Pages
  • 970 Words
 
   
 

Create a new account

It's simple, and free.

Negative Consequences of Legalizing Euthanasia Introduction Somer

Another argument against euthanasia with respect to its affects on society is that offered by Angelo (2001) who reports that patients who have just been diagnosed with a terminal illness often wish to die not because of a reasoned and thorough analysis of their situation, but rather due to depression. Angelo informs that once the depression has lifted, these patients then go on to live out the rest of their lives in a personally satisfying manner, glad that they did not take their lives. Given the difficulty of diagnosing depression among severely ill patients, it is quite likely that even mandated psychiatric consultation would fail to identify some cases of depression. Thus, we would have a society that would routine kill those who could otherwise live the rest of their lives in a productive and satisfactory manner.

Lemmens (1995) has also argued against euthanasia on the grounds of its negative effects to society, pointing out that one argument proponents of euthanasia advance is that without euthanasia people are forced to live in a society which imposes a way of dying upon them. The assumption here is that euthanasia is a policy that allows choice, but the truth is that legalizing euthanasia sends a different message to society. According to Lemmens, this message is that physical or mental impairment make lif

...

Page 1 of 4 Next >

More on Negative Consequences of Legalizing Euthanasia Introduction Somer...

Loading...
APA     MLA     Chicago
Negative Consequences of Legalizing Euthanasia Introduction Somer. (1969, December 31). In LotsofEssays.com. Retrieved 23:46, October 22, 2014, from http://www.collegetermpapers.com/viewpaper/3931.html
 
Copyright © 1999 - 2014 CollegeTermPapers.com. All Rights Reserved. DMCA