Pluralist Theory On Euthanasia

The pluralist theory demonstrates that people of different beliefs, backgrounds, etc., can participate in political processes. With pluralism, there is no one correct concept; there is more than one idea able to exist. For example, euthanasia falls into the category of pluralism because it exists but not everyone has to utilize the opportunity of euthanasia.

Key rulers in this decision were people with roles such as the Supreme Court of Canada, who were required to make a public decision to determine whether euthanasia would be legal in Canada.

The role of the state is to decide on legalization. The role of organizations is to debate both sides in the hope of satisfying their beliefs. The role of the individual is to decide whether to choose euthanasia if ever put in the situation.

The debate on CBC was a good example of pluralism because two different opinions were co-existing together. For example, the pro side of euthanasia argues that if someone is suffering, there is a solution to solve their suffering. The con side of euthanasia had two different points; Dr. Catherine Ferrier argues that euthanasia can be abused, using Belgium as an example of more abuse, such as euthanizing the depressed, the blind, and even children.

The second argument made was by a caller named Sonya, saying: “What I find this bull does is force other people to assist the suicide.” 

The Euthanasia cons have more points, yet the pro has the biggest pro amongst the group; the ability to choose.