Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Philosophical debate on euthanasia
Ethical theory and euthanasia
3. Literature review of palliative care
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
James Rachels opinion on euthanasia is that he is for it, however only active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is defined as “taking any direct action designed to kill the patient.” While passive euthanasia is “withholding treatment and allow a patient to die.” (pg.203) Which makes sense into why Rachels and myself would be more into AE rather than PE because it is a more humane way for people to die. Nonetheless Rachels way of pursuing people into euthanasia is well represented but he seems to skew away from the actual meaning of euthanasia and the American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines. The AMA states that to have euthanasia you must have all the qualifications, in the AMA own words “The cessation of the employment of extraordinary …show more content…
The doctors have done all they can for the man and is now just keeping him alive even though he will die in a few days. Knowing this the man and his family has asked the doctors to end his treatment. In this case Rachels doesn’t state if this is euthanasia or not but from how he worded his sentences you can obviously tell that he pretty much is going for that the patient will have euthanasia death. Now for this particular patient what Rachels sees to be fitting for him would be to have a AE death because it would be much less painful for him. However this still doesn’t tell us if it actually is a euthanasia death or not. If we lay things out it would be the man having an incurable throat cancer, doctors didn’t hold treatment and patient asked to withhold treatment. This to me seems to be a euthanasia …show more content…
The reason for this is due to the fact that the child is curable, all the child would need is to have surgery to make them all better. So the AMA would never permit it because the child is not facing death. The main reason why the child would even have to die by the parents thinking is because they just have down syndrome. Which with the doctors say in the matter seems to be pushing the parents into making this decision. When in fact it should be up to the parents only. So if the parent’s decided to let the child die then they are intentionally killing the child which has nothing to do with euthanasia. When reading this I felt that Rachels is talking about morals and what is right and wrong thing to do. Like is it okay to just let a infant die from something that is curable just because they have down syndrome, or let them live like that for the rest of their
According to Gamliel (2012), euthanasia refers to actions or omissions that result in the death of a person who is already gravely ill. Techniques of active euthanasia range fro...
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
There are a few key terms that may help you understand the issue better, as I explained above the term Euthanasia is Greek and means “good death”. There are different kinds of euthanasia, passive and active. Passive Euthanasia is when a doctor may without medical treatment that will result in a patient’s death, such discontinuing a feeding tube or having a do not resuscitate order. Active Euthanasia is taking specific steps to end a patient’s...
...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.
It allows for a highly questionable distinction between killing and letting die, which, if accepted, lead to indefensible medical decisions. Sullivan chooses to focus on the integrity of the Doctrine. The AMA Doctrine delivers the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary care. Ordinary care is obtained without excessive expense, pain or other inconvenience, while, extraordinary care is all treatment that does not fall under ordinary care and attempts to prolong the life of a terminally ill patient. The Doctrine can be considered a simple prohibition of murder, ensuring that doctors do not without ordinary care, because doing so would be considered killing. Rachels example seen convincing because they deal with withholding ordinary care but he fails to distinguish ordinary from extraordinary, then attacks the lack of ordinary care. This can be found in the Downs Syndrome Baby example, where severe down’s syndrome babies born with intestinal obstructions. Sometimes in such cases the baby is permitted to die. Rachels argues that in such cases we find compelling moral grounds for preferring active euthanasia to passive euthanasia in the vastly greater degree of suffering involved in letting the baby die. The AMA policy, strictly interpreted, seems to allow newborn Down Syndrome babies to die from intestinal blockages, though this is not the reason that parents think it best to let the babies die. Sullivan would deem that if the baby is suffering and their quality of life would not be adequate then the baby should be permitted to die. In the case of the Downs Syndrome Baby it would be permissible to withhold extraordinary care, according to Sullivan. The doctor, in removing extraordinary care, does not intend to kill the patient, but to spare the baby any suffering that may be endured through extraordinary
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
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...
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
“When a patient says, ‘Help me doctor,’ he is assuming that his doctor is on the side of his life.” This quote by Dr.Margaret Cottle , who is a palliative care physician , shows the mentality that most patients have when it comes to patient care. Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that has been debated on throughout the years. Whether it may be active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, indirect or physician assisted the morals and reasoning behind each are controversial. Though some people may believe euthanasia may be justified in a critical situation and critical punishment, euthanasia should be prohibited because euthanasia weakens societies respects for the sanctity of life, euthanasia might not be in the person’s best interest, and euthanasia affects other peoples rights, not just the patients.
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
In their case decision about euthanasia are in hands of his or her family and not always are good for those who are ill. However, even in a situation where the person taking this decision it is fully aware of , and indeed it wants , it is not morally ambiguous. The main arguments which they appear , refer mainly to metaphysical questions . It is said here that man has no right to decide about his death, just as you do not decide about the birth . Opponents believe that every human being has appointed his own time to live and he has no right to interfere in it . If we assume that the decision maker on these matters is God , this discussion is theoretically resolved . If God is the giver of life and his Lord , then only he can decide about death - that is independent of religion , which point of view we
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 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
Both sides have strong points backing them up.Deciding what is ethical is still a dilemma for some but from what i’ve always believed euthanasia to be ethical and this research just deepens my beliefs. In conclusion, when a patient chooses euthanasia to end its misery, everyone should respect his decision.Euthanasia is a temporary solution because no one can reduce the pain of losing someone but it is not the worst solution.Euthanasia is not the true solution to suffering.But its the best we have.