"Assess the view that natural law is of no help with regard to the issue of euthanasia."

Natural Law was first introduced by Aristotle, but was later developed by Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). It determines the right course of action through the lens of what our natural desires are and whether they fulfil humanity's baseline purposes. For example, the preservation of life, reproduction, to live in an ordered society and the worship of God. Aquinas called these "primary precepts". From these, Aquinas argues you can determine which actions are wrong if they challenge the primary precepts; he called these the "secondary precepts". Thus, with regards to euthanasia, it would go against the primary precepts of preserving life and worshipping God (as only God should have the power to give and take life), therefore it would be a wrong action. In support of the statement that Natural Law is of no help with regard to the issue of euthanasia, the first flaw of this argument is that it is reductionist. It attempts to simplify such a complex, ethical issue, down to four principles. Modern society has by no means disregarded the value of life, but quality of life has become more of the centre of our decision-making, which is not so much reflected in Natural Law. It also takes away the individual's free-will by upholding the belief in a God who is the only one to be in control of the timings of life and death. If this primary precept is stripped away, the foundations of the other precepts are also shaken. Consequently, Natural Law is not a universal ethical tool in today's society that no longer perceives life through a God-centred lens. Therefore, Fletcher's "situation ethics" would be of more help with regard to the issue of euthanasia. One positive aspect of this ethical theory, is that it focuses more on what the most loving thing to do is in that particular situation, thus upholding the individual's free-will.