More handpicked essays just for you.
A Defense Of Active Euthanasia
Voluntary active euthanasia as an ethical
Strengths and weakness of passive euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Active vs. Passive Euthanasia is there a difference? 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.
He said that active euthanasia is actually preferable because the whole goal of euthanasia is to end suffering, and active euthanasia ends suffering in a quicker and painless way. Compared to passive euthanasia which prolongs the suffering.
Rachel presents two cases called Jones vs Smith; they are exactly the same except one involves killing and the other letting die. In both cases Jones and Smith are in for a big inheritance if their 6-year-old cousin dies. They both go into the bathroom with the same intention of killing the kid. In the
…show more content…
Rachels’ says if the killing vs. letting die distinction is important than Jones’ behavior would be better than Smith’s. Both of the men had the same intentions going into the bathroom. In his conclusions he states that killing vs. letting die is not the source of difference in Euthanasia; he says it actually is a bad reason for preferring passive over active euthanasia.
I disagree with Rachels’ argument. In another argument by Daniel Callahan. Callahan believes euthanasia is morally impermissible. He believes that killing is worse than letting die. In Rachels’ conclusion is where I see the biggest problem. Rachels says killing vs letting die is a bad reason for preferring passive over active, but in Callahan’s paper he brings 2 important questions that people often associate with each other that he says are actually two separate questions. What caused the patient to die? Who is blame worthy of the patient’s death? The answer to the first question is answered by the person doing the autopsy. Autopsies are performed by a pathologist. Pathologist is a trained scientist that studied
James Rachels tells us in his article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” about two cases that involve in killing and letting die. He believes that there is no morally difference between killing and letting them die. I openly agree with the reasons James Rachels provided in his article. He gives us two different situations where one is involved in killing and another letting them die. Smith and Jones were planning on getting a decent amount of money from the death of their nephew, so they wanted the child dead.
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
...an’s argument. I have shown that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is being performed and I have shown that James Rachel’s has great examples on explaining that there is no difference in passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. Thirdly I have shown that James Rachel’s premises follow from his conclusions not just from the conclusion itself. Also I have given one of his main weaknesses in his argument. Moving forward to Sullivan I have explained how his reasons make no sense according to James Rachel’s. I have also shown Sullivan’s main weaknesses and one of his strong points against Rachel’s. I also gave some of Rachel’s weaknesses but after all I think that I have proven that Rachel’s argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan for many reasons. Lastly, I have given my own ideas and theories of which argument I think is better.
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
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
Johnson, Dana E. "Euthanasia Should Not Be Based Based on Economic Factors." Bernards, pp. 132-137.
Rachels’ first premise is, “passive euthanasia (i.e., withholding treatment) is permissible in part because it ends a patient’s suffering”. He then supports this premise by providing a quote from the American Medical Association. This quote essentially states that the intentional killing of one human being by another (in this case, active euthanasia) goes against the AMA and is therefore wrong. The cessation of necessary treatment to prolong the life of the body by the patient or the immediate family (passive euthanasia) when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent, however, is permissible. His second premise is that “active euthanasia is a more efficient and humane means to ending the patient’s suffering than passive euthanasia.” To defend this claim, Rachel gives the case of a patient with incurable throat cancer. This patient is sure to die in a matter of days even if treatment is continued. The patient does not wish to live on in agony and asks the doctor to cease treatment. The doctor ag...
What is the difference between killing someone and letting someone die? To get a little more technical, these phrases are also known as active and passive euthanasia. If one were to evaluate both of these, he would probably say that letting someone die were a better choice than killing someone. After all, most medical practices in the U.S. allow for the "legally." One may be preferred over the other but is that one better than the other? In an example, let's say that a doctor decides to withhold treatment of a patient who is ...
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
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.
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.
Rachels has a very strong opinion about the distinction of killing and letting die. He claims that there is little to no moral difference between actively killing and passively letting die (Hilliard, Exam 3 Med Ethics). Rachels states, "The idea
The reason so is that we have no way to figure from Rachels’ argument that Maggie’s decision was based in ethics. Rachels only discusses the morality of euthanasia in his argument. We can figure from his argument that Maggie’s decision was morally acceptable. However, we can conclude from other sources like Kant, Aristotle, and Nozick, that her decision was ethically acceptable. The way Maggie’s death was executed was not ethically acceptable, based on Kant’s principles. Rachels’ argument did not provide any argument or information on whether or not euthanasia or active euthanasia is ethically permissible. “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” (Mark
There exist three different types of euthanasia: active, passive and voluntary. Active euthanasia refers to the process of injection of painkillers and sleeping pills in order to reduce the time of suffering of a patient by making his death less painful. On the other side, voluntary euthanasia refers to the case of the conscientious patient, who voluntarily demands from the doctor to give up on treatments. In this case the patient is conscious that he will die soon and regardless that stops the treatments. In my discussion related to whether euthanasia should be legalized or not I will refer only to active and voluntary euthanasia arguments.