Question

(1) describe one argument Brock provides in favor of active voluntary euthanasia (for the argument, provide premises and conclusion); (2) describe one argument Callahan gives to oppose active voluntary euthanasia (for the argument, provide premises and conclusion).

Answer 1

1. one argument Brock provides in favor of active voluntary euthanasia is "Voluntary Active Euthanasia"
There are good reasons to allow voluntary active euthanasia and no compelling reasons to deny the practice, if well regulated.

2.legalizing the use of active ethunesia because patient’s autonomy should be respected.

3. The four ideas repeatedly used to support euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are:

1)individual self-determination.

2)Moral irrelevance between killing and allowing to die.

3) The supposed paucity of evidence to show likely harmful consequences of legalized euthanasia.

4) The compatability of euthanasia and medical practice

THE PREMISES OF THE ARGUMENT:

The positive results of allowing euthanasia:

1. A small group gets what they really want. We'll respect their autonomy.

2. The rest of us can be reassured that we have a way to avoid long-term suffering from illness.

3. Some people will have the direct benefit of reducing their physical and psychological suffering.

4. Since most people think that a quick death is better than a painful, lingering death, we are more humane if we allow euthanasia.

Conclusion:

IF voluntary euthanasia is legalized, then society will be automatically led down the slippery slope to involuntary euthanasia.

2. One argument Callahan gives to oppose active voluntary euthanasia.

Callahan responds to the claims of those supporting legalization of physician-assisted suicide in terminal illness. Callahan argues against this view on three grounds: that euthanasia and assisted suicide are evil, or more accurately, “morally mistaken”; that while physical pain and psychological suffering in the terminally ill are to be alleviated, assisted dying is not the way to do it; and that allowing physician-assisted suicide will risk wider killing based on “private standards of a life worth living”—the slippery slope argument. These are among the most prominent arguments in the case against legalization of assisted dying.

PREMISES of Callahan ARGUMENT:

1)The legitimate conditions under which a person can kill themselves. He claims the emergence of this issue is in stark contrast to many other efforts to curtail the reasons why one person can take another's life.
2)Meaning and limits of self determination. As for self determination, Callahan claims that such a notion simply leads to a "idiosyncratic view of the good life".
3)The claim such issues make upon the institution of medicine. For Callahan, forcing a physician to make his talents and skills available to achieve a patients private vision of the good life is simply wrong. Rather, he believes that a doctor should be availabe to, "promote and preserve human health.

Conclusion:

Callahan concludes that we cannot allow self-determination to run free, rather, doctors should focus on being comforting and palliative (ie reduce pain and anxiety) and that they should practice caring and compassion, instead of death.