Euthanasia and death penalty – pros and cons of playing God

For the sake of all definition-loving Steemians out there, let’s first define the terms that we are going to talk about today:

• Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering.
• Death penalty is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime.
• Playing God refers to someone supposedly taking on the role of God for acts like deciding who is to live or die.
• Slippery slope effect refers to an event when a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

All definitions come from the esteemed Ms. Wikipedia.

The main prerequisite for further discussion of this topic is solving: “Should we consider playing God at all?” - I say yes, as long as it brings more benefits than harm. The only objection to this would be: “Even if it brings more benefits, who are we to play God?” - Well, with that attitude, we wouldn’t do pretty much anything. Who are we to lock up someone in a cell for his criminal acts? Who are we to force someone into a mental institution because of his dangerously insane behavior? Who are we to destroy someone who is bombarding our country from an airplane? Who are we to choose to save someone in a situation where not everyone can be saved? And the list goes on and on.

I’ve checked for meaningful arguments for and against euthanasia and death penalty and added the ones I consider the most relevant in the tables below.

I believe that euthanasia should be allowed, but only under very strict regulation and control, in order to avoid the slippery slope effect, in order to avoid the slippery slope effect. In other words, only the most extreme cases of tedious pain and suffering should be considered, and the final decision should be not just up to the patient but also up to a specialized group of medicine and psychology experts. I don’t think that the family should play an important role in decision-making, as it’s not their life and they don’t have the expertise either.

I’m not determined about the death penalty as I am for (the strictly regulated and controlled) euthanasia. However, for some of the people that have repeatedly committed the vilest atrocities, such as tortures, child rapes, mass murders… Under the condition that this has been proven “beyond reasonable doubt”, with the word “reasonable” being understood in a rigorous way, I believe that they should be executed. Why? Because there shuldn't be even a slightest chance of them escaping from the prison, being set free from the prison, or even hurting other prisoners. In order to annul this chance, they would have to be isolated and locked up in a cell for the rest of their lives, and this is, if you ask me, far crueler than killing them instantly (and with a physically painless death, of course).

I could have written much more about all of this, but I would prefer to hear your opinion and continue the discussion in the comments.

• If you liked this post then you would also probably like my post about reverse discrimination.