Euthanasia - Argument So Far

Jasmine Parker

11/11/2016

PHIL1100 – 003

Euthanasia

In “Euthanasia”, Philippa Foot presents the topic of euthanasia and the moral standards that comes along with it. There is no way to inquire about a topic that you do not know much about, such as euthanasia, since you do not know where to begin. However, Philippa Foot sheds light on this controversial subject while also assessing the morality, distinction of justice and charity in relation to euthanasia and the two various types of euthanasia. Foot manages to unravel the deeper meaning of this topic by using multiple cases/situations to further support her opinion. In what follows, I will probe into Foot’s essay and discuss her many opinions on different subtopics of euthanasia.

In “Euthanasia”, Foot starts by stating the three different dictionary meanings of the word “euthanasia”. These three meanings: “a quiet and easy death”, “the means of procuring this” and “the action of inducing a quiet and easy death” (Foot, 85, ¶1) seem to be inconsistent with what Foot defines euthanasia as “a manner of opting for death for the sake of the one who dies” (Foot, 86, ¶2). According to Foot, the dictionary definitions shed light on the fact that the act of dying as an easy and quiet death can easily be an immoral act. However, throughout her article Foot is trying to prove that acting upon euthanasia is morally permissible as long as you are committing this act for the right reasons. In her definition, Foot points out that acting upon euthanasia is for the good of the person who is about to die, therefore she believes that because it is for the good of the person, that is what makes the act of euthanasia morally permissible. \