There is no harm to others from euthanasia and so the state should not limit people's access to it.

Question

Answer

Con: There could be a harm to other terminally ill people, as euthanasia may set a precedent which says that their life is not worth living.

Answer

Pro: The harm principle says that the government should only restrict an individual's actions when harm would come to others in society.

Answer

Con: Euthanasia suggests that some lives are not worth living: this does direct harm to the disabled community, who already struggle against systemic inequities in receiving appropriate care.

Should euthanasia be legalized?

There is no harm to others from euthanasia and so the state should not limit people's access to it.

Pros

Cons

The harm principle says that the government should only restrict an individual's actions when harm would come to others in society.

There could be a harm to other terminally ill people, as euthanasia may set a precedent which says that their life is not worth living.

Euthanasia suggests that some lives are not worth living: this does direct harm to the disabled community, who already struggle against systemic inequities in receiving appropriate care.

Selected claim, supporting its parent

There is no harm to others from euthanasia and so the state should not limit people's access to it.

Pro claim 1

The harm principle says that the government should only restrict an individual's actions when harm would come to others in society.

Con claim 1

There could be a harm to other terminally ill people, as euthanasia may set a precedent which says that their life is not worth living.

Con claim 2

Euthanasia suggests that some lives are not worth living: this does direct harm to the disabled community, who already struggle against systemic inequities in receiving appropriate care.