Euthanasia

One of the ways that the notions of respect and dignity are used to justify euthanasia is in the name of humanity towards a person. This is an utilitarian view because life has become a burden and there is no joy in living anymore. One of the arguments is that euthanasia is used to relieve terminally ill patients of tremendous pain and suffering. Out of respect to that person they should be able to be relieved of the suffering and have a quite and peaceful death. Or lets say a person that has been in a coma for years, and is not showing any signs of waking up. The person is being helped to breathe via respirator and has a feeding tube attached to them. In this case the respirator should be unplugged and let nature take its course to see how long the person is going to last. This will truly prove if the person is going to survive or not and if they pass away that means that the body could no longer fight and that death was meant to be.

On the other hand, the notions of respect and dignity could be used to argue against euthanasia. In Kantian ethics, euthanasia whether assisted or not is morally wrong, because In essence euthanasia is another word for killing and it doesn't matter whether it is passive or direct. If a person is in the hospital with a terminal illness, the doctors have to do everything possible to prolong the life of the person because everyone has the right to live no matter in what condition they are in. If a person is in a coma and cannot breathe on their own they should be kept on life support until the body gives up and the person dies on their own while give the respect and dignity to go on their own. In some cases people have woken up from comas after years, so if you would take the person of life support, you are taking away their chance to wake up.

In my view the first scenario is correct because if the person is going through unbearable suffering and there is no cure for him or her, why not help the person and relieve