Examples Of Passive Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a way that can help those who do not want to suffer or those who want it to be over quickly and with no pain. Does everyone have the right to die? “Many believe that killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die” (Rachels, 229). Many will say that God created us, and we should not take the easy way out, but rather was die slowly. Others believe that it is up to the person who is in pain whether they want to take an easy way out by an injection. In this paper I will discuss Passive Euthanasia and Active Euthanasia and James Rachels and Bonnie Steinbocks opinions on the subject. There will also be personal experiences as well as which between Passive and Active Euthanasia I believe has a stronger argument.
Passive Euthanasia

is death of patients that is brought about through the withholding of a life saving or prolonging treatment.

In other words, such as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), life support, and the right to refuse. An example of Passive Euthanasia is the Terri Schiavo case. Schiavo was a young woman who collapsed, and the oxygen was cut off from her brain. She had severe brain damage and was unable to communicate. She even had a feeding tube to sustain her life. Schiavo was only alive since she had a tube in to continue to feed her. Her husband, Mr. Schiavo, claimed that Terri Schiavo would not want her life to be prolonged, so he insists on the removal of the tube. Terri’s parents do not want the tube removed because they believe that their daughter will be able to recover. In the end of the case Terri’s tube was removed and she was starved to death. With this case it was all since Terri’s husband Mrs. Schiavo claimed that Terri would not have wanted to have her life prolonged. Which in the end is why I believe the tube was removed

because he had more authority over his wife rather than Terri’s parents did. There are also cases where a patient is dying, and the doctor tells that parents that their child needs a blood transfusion in order to save her life. They refuse because they believe her original blood was given by God and that her soul would be damned if she had the procedure done. But the doctor goes ahead and gives the young child the transfusion because he/she doesn’t want to let the child die. Another example of passive euthanasia would be the "do not resuscitate order". Say a patient has a heart attack, medical staff will attempt to revive them. If they decide to not make an effort but stand and watch as the patient dies, this is passive euthanasia.
Active Euthanasia is the death of a patient brought about through giving a lethal treatment. In other words, the patient is given an injection that will slowly take the life of them but with no harm. An example of this is Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian was a doctor who would give a drink with medicine in it that would kill the patient fast but painless. He would mix the drink together and the patient would drink it on their own terms. Kevorkian would ask the patient if taking their life was what they wanted, and they would agree. The doctor is not just giving the patient the lethal dose but is there as the patient takes the medicine on their own terms which results in taking their life. He was not taking their lives, but others thought otherwise. He was arrested for murder and he even lost his license to practice medicine. States such as Oregon, Washington State, Montana, California, Colorado, Vermont, and Washington DC all have doctors that allow you to come to them and take medicine that will take your life for you at your own terms. It’s a long process which helps the patients to determine whether taking their life is what they want to do.
A philosopher named James Rachels believes that either Active Euthanasia is moral in some cases or all cases of both Passive and Active are immoral. Based on Passive Euthanasia, “Doctors does not do anything to bring about the patient’s death. The doctor does nothing and the patient dies of whatever ills already afflict him” (Rachels, 231). With this statement from Rachels it is shown that either your life it taken from you based on your illnesses or your family who have decided to pull the plug on you when you are unconscious and haven’t been responsive for a few weeks. Based on Passive Euthanasia Rachels says, “one has the right to refuse life-prolonging treatment, then consistency demands that one have the right to decide to end his or her life” (Rachels, 235). He says this because he believes it is the “right to privacy or the right to bodily self-determination.” But he also goes on to explain that if you have the right to determine that happened to your body that you should not have the right to end your own life. I believe he says this because he does not like the idea of giving a person the right to decide whether you live or not. “Active Euthanasia the doctor does something to bring about the patients’ death: he kills them” (Rachels, 231). Rachels prefers Active over Passive Euthanasia because he says, “it leads to more suffering rather than less, and is contrary to the humanitarian impulse that prompts the decision no to prolong his/her life in the first place” (Rachels, 227). With that quote Rachels is saying that Active Euthanasia is a faster process and it very painless compared to Passive.
There are two cases that help to understand Passive and Active Euthanasia.

The Smith and the Jones cases.
“Smith and Jones would be in line of a large inheritance if there was something to happen to their younger cousin. In scenario one Smith waits for his younger cousin to take a bath. Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the boy. He then proceeds to arrange it as though there was an accident. In scenario two, Jones waits for his cousin to take his bath. Jones sneaks into the bathroom to try to drown the boy but before he could the child slips and hits his head. The child was drowned accidently by himself. Instead of helping his cousin Jones lets his cousin drown.” (Rachels, 229).
Smith ended up killing his cousin to get the inheritance. While Jones did not kill his cousin, he just watched him die while not doing anything. Jones did the deed without killing his cousin. Rachels says that between both men there is no moral difference. They let their cousin die to have personal gain while in the end having the same view. Both, Jones and Smith did not have good intentions. There is no moral difference between an action which causes death (Smith), and an inaction which directly allows death to occur (Jones). The actions between Smith and Jones are morally wrong. When comparing the Smith and Jones cases to euthanasia today there is little that is similar. With Smith and Jones, they had intentions to harm the boy (killing or letting him die), as where euthanasia is the intentions

to not bring harm or suffering.
Bonnie Steinbock is another philosopher who does not support the active or passive euthanasia but supports the withholding of treatment. Steinbock does not agree with the argument which Rachels says about passive euthanasia, the prolonging of treatment. Steinbock believes you have the right to refuse treatment and decide what is done to your body. She also states that continuing a treatment maybe more uncomfortable than the cancer which you are going through. Stopping the treatment helps with the discomfort for the patient. Steinbock focuses on the importance of intention where she believes if a doctor stops treatment to respect a patient's choice, the doctor has committed passive euthanasia. If a doctor intentionally takes a person's life, the act is not euthanasia, it was done to end the patient's suffering.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings for which of Passive or Active I would prefer. I have been through Passive Euthanasia with family members and I would never want any one I love to do and try to want to try Active Euthanasia. I have had many family members who have been very unresponsive while in the hospital and instead of pulling the plug on them we waited it out to see if they got better, which they all in the end did over time. I know many people do this rather than cutting them off because they don’t want to lose any family member. No one wants to lose someone they love. A few months ago, my uncle was diagnosed with cancer and he refused to have treatment because he did not want to though the whole chemotherapy process because he knew there would be pain involved. With Active Euthanasia I would not want anyone in my family to go and take their life from a medicine mixture or injection because they felt as though it was the best thing for them to do to have a pain free life. No one wants to live a painful life, but I feel as though the lose of a family member this way will still be hard on the family because they decided to commit suicide rather than wait for God to do his work. So, if you asked me if I preferred Active or Passive Euthanasia I would have to agree with what Rachels said, “A quick death is always preferable to a lingering one” (Rachels, 241). Many will agree with this statement no matter if they were Active or Passive. No one wants to have a painful last minutes or even days of their life rather than a quick death with no pain. In the end its just easier to stop all treatments and end the suffering.
To conclude Passive and Active Euthanasia, death is a part of life, but many have more health issues which may lead them to want to end their life in a faster and far less painful way. In the end it all comes down to that person and their beliefs. One cannot simply change another’s mind on whether Active is better than Passive because in the end that they can result in death just one may be more painful than the other. Whether the pain is for the family of the patient or the patient. While I believe Rachels argument is right I also believe that Steinbock had a very strong argument as well. The patient has the right to refuse treatment and decide what they think, and feel should be done to their body. No one wants to have to go through a long and painful treatment process, which is why many want may want to end the treatment to stop their suffering.