Final answer:
Non-voluntary euthanasia raises questions about its moral acceptability in certain conditions. Some argue that it can be morally permissible when individuals have voluntarily waived their right to life, while others highlight potential harms and the role of a physician. Striking a balance between autonomy and potential abuse is crucial in determining its moral acceptability.
Step-by-step explanation:
Non-voluntary euthanasia, which is currently illegal in Canada, raises ethical questions about moral acceptability in certain conditions. Australian philosopher Peter Singer argues that euthanasia can be morally permissible when a person has consciously and voluntarily waived their right to life. Singer opposes only involuntary euthanasia, where the decision is made without the patient's input or against their interests. This perspective highlights the importance of respecting patient autonomy and balancing the relief of unnecessary suffering with individual rights.
However, there are opposing philosophical views that argue against legalizing non-voluntary euthanasia. Some philosophers believe that the harms to the community outweigh the benefits, emphasizing the potential for misuse and abuse. Furthermore, the opposition argues that active euthanasia is incompatible with the role of a physician, as they are primarily dedicated to helping and doing no harm.
Ultimately, the moral acceptability of non-voluntary euthanasia relies on striking a balance between respecting individual autonomy and preventing potential abuses. It involves considering the quality of life, the relief of suffering, and the potential risks associated with legalizing this practice.