Euthasansia

Its hard to find the morality for any death. A controlled environment at least gives the

choice to the patient. Accidents will occur true enough, but the mistake on someone life who

trusts your ideas in saving him or her without a sense of responsibility is the direct result of non-

consequentialist consideration. For example, lets say you have the responsablity of a child for

the first time. It's the child first time being with someone other than family and you forget to tell

the child to hold your hand when crossing the street and the child is hit by a car. Who is the

blame? Why, because it was forgotten by family to tell the child it makes everything alright

that you didn't warn the child either? If the wrong man is killed due to the mistake of a witness

in a case are they morally wrong? Why do the actions of a person in the medical field be any

different. To not knowingly give or neget to give is the same as doing it on purpose when

someone dies from the mistake.

How can the question of morality be asked by the other person outside the love ones who

does not have a clue on what is or is not best for the patient. Yet and still to knowing take a life is

just as morally wrong. To know the consequence and not try everything in your power to save but

is willing to kill sends a chill to my spine. Daily we as a people subconscious put our life in other

people hands . So when someone go farther then we want them to, it make us think if you do it to

the next person then it could be me. True fully, there isn't a moral difference in taking something you

did not give. In order to take a life without any question of moral understanding create a life. There

seem to be a social moral misunderstanding if the rule utilitarianism is used as a couch for the soul

searching of an act that goes way deeper than patient and the doctor. What about the reason why

the doctor feels the act of euthanasia is necessary. Do the patient puts the physician in this situation

or the insurance companies. Or is it the result of the taxpayers as a whole.

To technically say brain dead, no electrical pulses or weak pulses runs through it.

This cause the rest of the body to shutdown. On the other hand, Its reported the brain can live a

number of minutes without the body support. If these studies are correct, if the brain is dead than to

keep a body alive without a response from the brain is only for the love ones to realize that the

patient is actually decease. It reminds me of the rule utilitarian. The happiness of the family is

involved instead of the individual whom has suffered. I do not feel it is morally right for someone's

body be forced to live without any sign of the body responding at all just for the family to say

goodbye. Unless the body is to be incinerated why have the family including children watch the one

they care about stop breathing, then go to the funeral and see the life-less body again!

What kind