Topic for today??? Euthanasia!!!

           No. Really the topic for today is euthanasia. And while this topic is very grim and seedy. We must discuss why and who receives euthanasia. Of course I will throw in my two cents in the conversation

            Euthanasia is one of those topics where it is widely debated and can cause more than a few ruffled feathers. For the many people who are up in arms about euthanasia and the supposed uproar that it entails there are many people who are supportive of it, like me. I am a supporter of assisted suicide and euthanasia, especially for those who are sick, both mentally and physically ill and who do not wish to live any longer. J. Gay-Willams opposes euthanasia and therefore is on the other side of the debate. This sticky topic will be handled with careful hands and with the utmost respect as I dismantle his opposing view.

J. Gay Willams in his article begins by saying that euthanasia is inherently wrong. And that just because a person might want to die, it doesn't make it right to kill them. I will first point out that in my opinion euthanasia and killing are two different words with two very different meanings. At least when it comes to a dying person wanting to die versus someone killing another. A willing participant in euthanasia is just that-willing in the act that will be performed on them. While killing is the act of taken the person’s life without regards to them or their feelings.

One side is consent to “kill them” or allow them to die. While another side is smothering them in their sleep just because they cheated on you on your fortieth wedding anniversary. Williams also goes on to clarify what he believes to be the difference between euthanasia and killing. He says that passive euthanasia is a misleading phrase and a mistake. His examples was if a person, after finding out that they will no longer benefit from medication or treatment refuses to do treatment or take medication soon after dies than that really wasn't killing in comparison to other methods of euthanasia.

I find it actually funny that Mr. Willams believes that every single human being on this planet has a natural incline to continue on living. I will agree to an extent, animals-that includes humans- does have an uncanny resilience to live. Whether to procreate or live life to the fullest is not what I'm hinting to. Humans, most of the time, does want to live long prosperous lives. Not all humans in fact will live long prosperous lives. And not all humans want to be alive, nor are all humans healthy and happy. There are some who are terminally ill who suffer every day and have no way out. No escape route aside from euthanasia. A route I do not think anyone else aside from the sufferer should choose, unless the person is in a permanent coma or vegetative state, then a legal guardian should be able to choose.

Mr. Willams says, “Euthanasia does violence to this natural goal of survival. It is literally acting against nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily survival.” I will like to note to Williams that humans aren't just guided by nature nor hormones. We have the rationale to decide our faiths. He should not use a bogus accuse such as the nature versus nurture survival mechanism which excludes the fact that individuals are capable of deciding if they should die or not when in pain. Why allow a person to die in agony just so they can die “naturally”? Humans have made advances way beyond ordinary animals, we choose to live in luxury and comfort. A great portion of human societies have lived in technological and scientific comforts that nature cannot afford us.