Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A topic about MERCY KILLING
Active euthanasia and passive euthanasia essay
Ethical issues with death
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: A topic about MERCY KILLING
James Rachel, in his article called Active and Passive Euthanasia analyzes the moral dilemma between administering a lethal drug to a patient versus letting the terminally ill patient succumb to their ailment. He brings up many good points such as the AMA’s policy forbidding what he calls ‘mercy killing’, and the legal ramifications it may also bring with it. I agree with him on what he says on the subject. And there is a gray area between what is the right thing to do. Active and Passive euthanasia are no equal, and there are cases where one would be more suitable than the other. For me personally I believe that it depends on the situation and it should be address case by case. For example if a patient is terminally ill and has only days to
live I believe that a physician should be able to administer a lethal drug to the patient if it is in their wishes. Though The hippocratic oath does say “do no harm”, I believe that sometimes we need to deviate away from the the oath tells us to. If ending a terminally ill patient's life prematurely by a couple days in a sense ‘alleviates the pain’, I see no harm in doing so. It is better than the alternative which would be to die slowly in pain. Connecting this to the third reading,I think QALY also has a role in this. On the scale where larger positive numbers equate to a better quality of life, and a number less than zero signifies a life worse than death, we should take into account these numbers the associate with a patient's ailment when accessing if active euthanasia is appropriate, if they do so wish to take that route. To reiterate, I do believe the active euthanasia should not be frowned upon by the medical community. Ending the life of a patient that is in pain that is worse than life itself should not be burdened on anyone. Though the Hippocratic oath says that we should do all in power to help patients recover from their ailments, there are ailments that can not be recovered from and will eventually lead to a slow death. It would be better to let them die peacefully than it would be to let them live on in pain until they succumb to the sickness.
Both Brittany Maynard and Craig Ewert ultimately did not want to die, but they were aware they were dying. They both suffered from a terminal illness that would eventually take their life. Their worst fear was to spend their last days, in a state of stress and pain. At the same time, they would inflict suffering on their loved ones as their family witnessed their painful death. Brittany and Craig believed in the notion of dying with dignity. The states where they both resided did not allow “active voluntary euthanasia or mercy killing at the patient’s request” (Vaughn 269). As a result, they both had to leave their homes to a place that allowed them to get aid in dying. Brittany and Craig were able to die with dignity and peace. Both avoiding
According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348). He points out two
In this essay I will be analysing the morality of voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). I will focus on the argument that if such an act is considered morally acceptable, it can only lead down a slippery slope in which society becomes grossly unrecognizable in terms of the value of life. This essay will examine the strengths and weaknesses of this argument and the moral principles which underpin it to determine whether or not it remains a convincing argument to VAE.
I believe Rachels’ argument is not successful. In Rachels’ paper he argues that active vs. passive euthanasian is on the same level morally speaking. He shows that by killing vs. letting die has no difference.
The society in Lois Lowry’s book The Giver is like a freshly printed newspaper every page is crisp and clean, but when a page is crumpled or stained the only solution is to remove it. Problems in the town are created and solved by the same cause, euthanasia. Euthanasia, in the book, is used on multiple types of people; the young who would create problems for the society; the old; and anyone who threatens the order and structure of the place. The leaders euthanize people to protect their community. Usually in situations where many suffer and only one or few benefit, it is whoever is in charge that gets blamed, but since the rulers of the society are just as unaware as the people, it is the creators of the society that are at fault.
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
Lavi (2005) explained how the mastering of medical techniques has caused the world of Law and Medicine to be intertwined:
People in today’s society, there is many opinions about physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Many people think that it is wrong for people to ask their physician to end their life; while others feel it is okay for them to be able to choose how and when they want to die. A physician has to be very responsible, they have to provide valid information about the terminal illness the patient is suffering from, making the decision if whether or not to help the patient into death and to decide what medication they will have to use to end the patients life. The types of lethal drugs that the physician prescribes would be euthanasia. There are many types of Euthanasia which is voluntary,involuntary,passive, and active.
In British Columbia, euthanasia is illegal as it is unconstitutional and violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Duffy, 2015). Muckart, Gopalan, Hardcastle, and Hodgson (2014) define euthanasia as the conduct that brings about an easy and painless death for persons suffering from an incurable or painful disease. I maintain that the law should regulate euthanasia as it goes against the Charter and the judicial system should have the power to determine issues relating the euthanasia as legality is under question. I will rely heavily on the narratives from The Common Place of Law supported by secondary sources (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). I will consider each of the possible alternatives of legal consciousness to develop
One area of moral dilemma that requires our attention is regarding euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of ending life in order to relieve pain or suffering caused by a terminal illness. Euthanasia can further be divided into two subcategories active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the process of deliberately causing a person’s death. In passive euthanasia a person does not take any action and just allows the person to die. In many countries, the thought of euthanasia is morally detestable. However, many doctors find nothing wrong with allowing a terminally ill patient to decide to refuse medication. This decision is a form of passive euthanasia the doctor did not actively cause the patient’s death, but he did nothing to prevent the patient’s death. Failing to act and directly acting is not the same as not being responsible for the consequences of an event.
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
The two procedures, “Active euthanasia – A doctor or a nurse gives an ill patient medicine that will kill them” and “Passive euthanasia – A patient does not get the medicine or treatment that they need in order to stay alive” (English online). Some pros of euthanasia would have to be giving the right to someone to decide when their life should end, some people my be experiencing severe deadly physical and emotional pain in which they just couldn’t handle anymore. The patient is the only person that truly knows what they are feeling and going thru. It seems as most Americans do favor euthanasia, “Americans generally favor allowing doctors to assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives, but the degree of support ranges from 51% to 70%, depending on how the pr...
According Richard Gula, active euthanasia is legally considered homicide (5). Another intervention and approach to euthanasia could be through the use of analgesic means. The use of morphine or other anesthetic medication could be used to allow the patient to die or hasten their dying process. I consider the latter procedure to be more humane than that of the other because it is morally wrong to kill a person, rather it's humane for someone to die naturally. Before I discuss the rights and wrongs of euthanasia, I will define death or a person, when is it safe to say...
I believe it is quite clear that voluntary passive euthanasia is moral; however, the morality of voluntary active euthanasia is a much more difficult subject to consider. Since the circumstances surrounding euthanasia can vary greatly from case to case, it is difficult to make absolute statements regarding its morality. My first instinct is to say that voluntary active euthanasia is immoral because killing is immoral. However, it becomes more debatable when it is truly performed to end a terminally ill patient’s suffering. I think that Rachels had a fairly convincing point that the process of being “allowed to die” can be slow and painful whereas a lethal injection is quicker and less painful. But, is a lethal injection really more humane than letting the patient die of natural causes? I am more inclined to believe that it is not.
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that raises many moral dilemmas. Is it right to end the life of a terminally ill person, even if the person is suffering and in severe pain? Is euthanasia ever justifiable? Is there any difference between just letting a