Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the ethical dilemma with voluntary euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia legal arguments for
What is the ethical dilemma with voluntary euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Applied Ethics
Explain and comment on James Rachels’ view that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Do you agree with Rachels’ view?
Chung Hoi Yi, Mandy 10584907
24/4/2014
Introduction
Euthanasia (means ‘good death’) refers to “any action where a person is intentionally killed or allowed to die because it is believed that the individual would be better off dead than alive---- or else, as when one is in an irreversible coma, at least no worse off.”(M.Tooley)
Passive and Active euthanasia
Euthanasia as its name means is "serenity (or happy) to die". In euthanasia can be divided into both active and passive. The former (active euthanasia) is the avoidance of pain by taking life, while the latter (passive euthanasia) is to avoid the pain of the law, but allowed death occurred. Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can be divided into two. Former is the voluntary death of patients, whether the latter. Deaths can be triggered by themselves or by others, which belongs to a suicide, while the latter was killed.
James Rachels’ view
James Rachels argues that it makes no moral difference whether death is caused by someone doing something to bring it about, or someone not doing anything to prevent its coming about. Causing death through inaction rather than action does not necessarily render you either morally or legally innocent of responsibility for that death. Passive euthanasia normally takes longer to bring about death than active euthanasia would have .If the patient is in pain and if the suffering is part of the reason for choosing euthanasia, then it is cruel and inconsistent to choose passive euthanasia which brings about more suffering than the active one.
Why Passive Euthanasia can be ...
... middle of paper ...
...ion, believing that this is the most compassionate decision. Forth is family with a heavy financial burden in addition to social and psychological burden, family members may have to shoulder a heavy financial burden. Serious illness can run out of their life savings in a very short time. These living tend to be survivors. Sometimes the disease can take the whole family-parenting or healthy and saving money for your family. Thus, euthanasia is mercy not only dying people, more compassion for those caring for patients-survivors. Fifth is to reduce social burden as medical costs rise, increase in the number of older persons in society, and the resources needed to take care of patients has also increased. That is why this is a moral thing to do.
Conclusion
To conclude, active euthanasia is a moral thing to do in order to release the pain of patients caused by diseases.
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
The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek and means “good death” (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) and in the range of this paper, it will be called physician assisted suicide or “active” euthanasia. The definition of “active” euthanasia is ending one’s life yourself or with aid of a doctor. It can be done in various different ways; however, the most common form is with a combination of drugs, usually given by a physician. ( http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) The reason Physician Assisted Suicide (or PAS) is an important issue in this country and around the world is that there are many people out there suffering from debilitating, incurable and intensely painful diseases that would like to end their lives with dignity and without suffering. (Leo & Lein, 2010, The Value of a Planned Death)
In “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels, he believed that if the American Medical Association (AMA) accepts passive euthanasia, then active euthanasia should be permitted as well since passive euthanasia tends to cause more pain and suffering to the patient more than active euthanasia does, and both end with death. In “The Intentional Termination of Life” by Bonnie Steinbock, she does not argue against euthanasia, but instead, she focuses on the intention of doctors in the act of euthanasia. She believes that in certain cases of passive euthanasia, there could be other reasons to the act of removing or withholding treatment other than
Euthanasia comes from the Greek word that means “good death” (“Euthanasia” Literary). In general, euthanasia refers to causing the death of someone to end their pain and suffering oftentimes in cases of terminal illness. Some people call this “mercy killings.”
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.
Euthanasia, according to Munson , refers to the act of ending life in order to relieve pain and suffering for the patient by means of lethal injections. Euthanasia gives terminally ill patients the opportunity to end their suffering and pain when the illness is incurable. There are also different types of euthanasia called involuntary, voluntary, and non-voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is the focus in this analysis, meaning that all patients involved are found to be completely competent and able to make a decision to end their life.
Euthanasia is a painless peaceful death. Euthanasia is defined as the deliberate putting to death of a person suffering from a painful, incurable disease(New Standard Encyclopedia Dictionary). People use other terms to describe euthanasia: mercy killing, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia can be unresponsive, (inactive) or active. Unresponsive euthanasia occurs when an incurably ill person refuses life sustaining medical support. Active euthanasia happens when another person deliberately causes the death of a terminally ill person, such as when someone gives a terminally ill person a lethal injection. Euthanasia can also be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia occurs with the consent of the dying person, while involuntary euthanasia happens when the dying person doesn’t give their consent.
Euthanasia is the act of ending a person’s life through lethal injection or through the removement of treatment. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word meaning “good death.” When a death ends peacefully, it is recognized as a good death. In modern society, euthanasia has come to mean a death free of any pain and anxiety brought on through the use of medication; this can also be called mercy killing, deliberately ending someone’s life in order to end an individual’s suffering. Anything that would ease human suffering is good. Euthanasia eases human suffering. Therefore, euthanasia is good. Because active euthanasia is considered as suicide or murder, it is a very controversial issue and therefore, illegal in most places. Although there are always
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
The controversy over euthanasia has recently become highly publicized. However, this issue is not a new debate. Society has voiced its opinions on the subject for hundreds of years. Euthanasia, which is Greek for "good death", refers to the act of ending another person’s life in order to end their suffering and pain.1 Two forms, passive and active euthanasia, categorize the actions taken to end the person’s life. Passive euthanasia involves removing a patient’s life support, withholding food and water, and discontinuing medical treatments. Active euthanasia includes any direct action taken to cause the death of the person, such as administrating a lethal drug.2 The debate over this issue stems from moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. All of these standpoints either side with the patient dying a natural death or from an accelerated death by euthanasia.
The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
McManaman, Doug. A. “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified.” Assisted Suicide. Ed. Nol Merino.
Euthanasia is one of the most recent and controversial debates today (Brogden, 2001). As per the Canadian Medical Association, euthanasia refers to the process of purposely and intentionally performing an act that is overtly anticipated to end the person’s life (CMA, 1998)
Euthanasia has always been defined as easy and gentle death especially in cases of painful and incurable illness. It has also been referred to as mercy killing of those considered hopelessly ill, incapacitated or injured patients. It is a matter of life and death. To medical practitioners the dilemma remains: prolong