Some philosophers believe that active euthanasia and passive euthanasia are separate entities and are morally different. However, I believe that there is no moral difference between the two, so an act of voluntary euthanasia should not have to be distinguished between active and passive. Euthanasia is defined as the act of killing a patient to avoid suffering from a painful disease or a hopeless injury. Death is the result of both active and passive euthanasia. While the term “active” indicates the physician’s intentional choice to end the life of a patient, the term “passive” means that the physician allows the patient to die by withholding life-preserving needs. Although the means of active and passive euthanasia are slightly different, this …show more content…
In both active and passive euthanasia, the motive of death is the same and the patient ends up dying. An example of active euthanasia and killing is giving a lethal injection to a patient. In this, the doctor is directly killing the patient and knows his action will lead to the patient’s death. An example of passive euthanasia and letting the patient die is turning off a patient’s life-support machine. The machine is keeping the patient alive, so the doctor knows pulling the plug will lead to the patient’s death. These two typical examples show that in regard to morality, the physician understands that his action will cause death soon after. An objection to the idea that active and passive euthanasia have the same moral weight is that passive euthanasia means that the patient technically dies from the disease or injury rather than the doctor’s action. However, this argument is not supported well. When the physician turns off the life-support machine, the instantaneous effect of the physician’s act is the death of the patient. If the doctor did not unplug the machine at a certain time, the patient would not have died at a moment immediately after. Therefore, the patient’s life would have continued if it were not for the physician’s deed. The only difference between active and passive euthanasia is the means of killing the patient. However, in both cases, both killing and allowing someone to die is an intentional act done by the
Imagine a family member being extremely ill and suffering from day to day. When they decide they cannot take the pain any more, would you want them to pull through for you or would you fulfill their dying wish and let the doctor pull the plug? Could you even make a decision? Many people would not allow such an event to happen because with all the pain and confusion the patient is enduring may cause confusion and suicidal tendencies. However, there are people who believe otherwise. This is called physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a controversial topic that causes much debate. Though it is only legal in the three states Oregon, Washington and Montana, there are many people who are for it and think it can be necessary. Even with morals put aside, Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal because it will be a huge violation of the oath every doctor must abide by, there would be no real way to distinguish between people who are suffering and the people who are faking or depressed, and it causes a lot of confusion to people with new diseases or new strands of disease that does not have a clear cure.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns on both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
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
Active Euthanasia: Physician Assisted Suicide is Wrong? The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek word meaning "good death."
Physician assisted suicide, is it ethically right or morally wrong? The global controversy becomes emotional as some argue that physician assisted suicide contradicts moral reasoning to preserve life. Others argue that it is acceptable for a dying person to choose to escape unbearable suffering and to alleviate their pain. In order to choose a side of the controversy one must understand the meaning of physician assisted suicide and what a terminally ill patient is. Physician assisted suicide occurs when a physician supervises a patient’s death by providing the necessary means for the patient to enable the death. Terminally ill as stated in CNN news is a person with a life threatening illness that has a prognosis of 6 months or less to live.
There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive or voluntary euthanasia refers to withholding life saving treatments or medical technology to prolong life. For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need to be placed on life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia” Discovering).
In March of 1998, a woman suffering with cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs. This law does not include people who have been on a life support system nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. Many people worry that legalizing doctor assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine and it has been argued that the reason why some terminally ill patients yearn to commit suicide is nothing more than depression. Physician Assisted Suicide would lessen the human life or end the suffering and pain of those on the verge of dying; Physician Assisted Suicide needs to be figured out for those in dire need of it or for those fighting against it. The main purpose for this paper is to bring light on the advantages and disadvantages of physician-assisted suicide and to show what principled and moral reasoning there is behind each point.
given," which seems to mean that no one has a right to consent to have
Euthanasia - Pro and Con & nbsp; Abstract & nbsp; This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are. required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective. favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall. endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia. & nbsp; Thesis Statement & nbsp; Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to.
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.
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.
Euthanasia is divided into two separate classifications consisting of passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Traditionally, “euthanasia is passive when a physician allows her patient to die, by withholding or withdrawing vital treatment from him…euthanasia is active when a patient's death results from his physician's killing the patient, typically by administering lethal medication” (Varelius, 2016). While active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide share many of the same characteristics, they differ in the role for committing the final act, resulting in the death of the patient. A third party, consisting of either a family member or the physician, is responsible for “pulling-the-plug” in active euthanasia. On the other hand, in physician-assisted suicide, it is ultimately up to the patient to commit the final death-inducing act. Varelius suggests that the separation of passive and active euthanasia can be explained by the involvement that the physician partakes in their patients’ death
In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans?
Whose life is it, anyway? Euthanasia is a word that means good death. Euthanasia normally implies that the act must be initiated by the person who wishes to commit suicide. But, some people define euthanasia to include both voluntary and involuntary termination of life. Physician assisted suicide is when a physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide (lethal dose of sleeping pills or carbon monoxide gas) to a person, so that they can easily terminate their own life.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.