The argument that killing is worse than letting die has become a paradox to many. There is a common pre-disposed perception of the term “killing” being coined as evil and bad thus leading to the conclusion that killing is worse than letting die. Throughout this essay I will use the “nasty cousins” example by James Rachels (1975), which shows that there is no clear distinction between Active and Passive euthanasia when one kills. Also an example of why killing isn’t worse and can sometimes be better than letting die by Helga Kuhse (1998). Though through further reading and analysis of argument’s showing that killing isn’t worse than letting die, I have noticed there are similar traits of ideology within these conclusions, that of which are the ideology of Utilitarianism. This leads me to John Hardwig’s (1997) “Duty to Die” which he too gives an example of where we must act on the interest of the greater good and not be self-centered and how letting die can also be seen as a Utilitarian act as well.
There too is the common misconception of the negativity between Active and Passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is commonly seen as the more worse act as it is actively pursuing to make a person die, where as Passive euthanasia is withdrawing something from the patient that was keeping them alive, and as a result they die. Because you are not actively acting to make the patient die in Passive euthanasia it seems more permissible than to Actively pursue it. Rachels shows us that in the “nasty cousins” scenario with Smith and Jones, that there is no distinction between Active and Passive euthanasia. Both Smith and Jones are cousins of a 6 year old, and if something were to happen to their cousin, they will receive a large inheritance. Fi...
... middle of paper ...
...elief, people must act on Utilitarianism for killing not to be worse than letting die. Killing to save an ill patient from a painful death is not only permissible to the patient, but to those around them who are now free of worry, distress and financial issues from having to witness the suffering. Though when killing your co-driver or friend from being tortured or stuck in wreckage is permissible because you know you have prevented them from suffering and have given them a relatively speaking, painless and quick death. Even if the patient is suffering painfully and does not want to be euthanized, then that is a rational decision but it is not permissible to euthanize them because this outcome would not be Utilitarianistic knowing the patient had been killed of an un-wanted death and those around would feel a certain feeling of guilt for the remainder of their lives.
Daniel Challahan attempts to argue that Euthanasia is always seriously morally wrong in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok.” Callahan discusses several reasons depicting why he believes that Euthanasia is morally impermissible. John Lachs, however, does not see validity in several of Callahan’s points and responds to them in his article, “When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok.” Two points from Callahan’s article Lachs challenges are the fundamental moral wrong view and the subjectiveness of suffering.
In “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” Judith Thomson confronts the moral dilemma of how death comes about, whether one meets their demise through natural causes or by the hands of another (Shafer-Landau 544). If one does in fact lose their life through the action or inaction of another person, a second dilemma must also be considered. Does it matter whether a person was killed or simply allowed to die? The moral debate that arises from these issues is important because if forms opinions that ultimately sets the tone for what is socially acceptable behavior. Social issue such as legalization of euthanasia, abortions, and the distribution of medical resources all hinge on the “killing vs letting die problem”.
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
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.
I'm not afraid of being dead. I'm just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there” (Pamela Bone). The sense of dying or losing a loved one is a conception that has plagued any family member at some time or another. How will one deal with the struggle of burying their loved one, the bills, and not waking up and seeing them or calling them every day? More so, will that person be in the pain when they leave their physical form? Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, gives a person the chance the take the ending of their life into their own hands and make, an otherwise undefined, decision of how he/she would want their final moments to be. In this paper I plan to display that based on the utilitarian perspective, Rachels’ writings, and contemplating human rights constructed from a governmental outlook, that euthanasia is just and morally acceptable and should be considered in a reasonable means of expiry when an entity is plagued with chronic mental, emotional, or physical pain.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
In the context of euthanasia, helping someone end their suffering may be viewed as doing more good than harm. This is said to be in line with the moral view that no patient be allowed to suffer unbearably, out of compassion and mercy (Norval and Gwyther, 2003). However, it can be argued that a further step in beneficence is the “duty to prevent harm to others” (Pellegrino and Thomasma, 1987), which falls under the principle of non-maleficence. Thus appropriate and optimal palliative care should be the right approach instead of euthanasia. Euthanasia advocates also set forth an argument based on distributive justice to support active voluntary euthanasia. The “rule of rescue” questions whether it is ethical to engage in expensive treatment of terminally ill patients to prolong their lives for a short period when medical funding is limited and gradually decreasing (Gabriel, 2011). This preferential treatment compromises the objectives of the medical profession and is morally unacceptable. The terminally ill patients who are already vulnerable should not be left to feel that they are a burden. They should be treated equally and should not be seen as depriving someone else of a prior right to those resources. Finally, as Beauchamp and Childress note, “the most vital consideration which binds all the four principles together is the character of the doctor who has to treat and care for his patients”
Despite euthanasia being depicted as unjust in terms of Kings definition I believe that ending a patient’s life in order to relieve pain and suffering is ‘just’ only if the patient has made the decision and doctors have done all they could. Besides, a happy death sounds a lot better than a painful death.
A recent poll founded by the Canadian Medical Association found that “only one in five doctors surveyed. . . said they would be willing to perform euthanasia if the practice were legalized. . . Twice as many – 42 percent – said they would refuse to do so” (Kirkey 1). Euthanasia is defined as giving a patient the right to die early with a physician’s assistance, and the legalization of this practice is being considered by lawmakers in many countries, including the United States. Accordingly, 42 percent of doctors in Canada are on the right side of this debate. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it violates society’s views that life is sacred, creates economic pressure for doctors, and for those countries that have legalized it, their laws are not specific enough to fully protect patients.
In this paper, I will argue that killing is better than letting die if, in general, the intention is compassion rather than gratification. In other words, it is morally permissible to deliberately take action that results in another’s death if the motivation is out of compassion rather than gratification, and that this is significantly better than deliberately failing to take steps which are available and which would have saved another’s life – merely allowing someone to die.(definitions –cite NESBITT) ................
Our values, opinions and beliefs depend on what culture, religion and the society we come from. People who are against view euthanasia as murder and that we must respect the value of life. Those who are in favor of euthanasia believe that doing such act eliminates the patient’s pain and suffering. Also, the right to die allows the person to die with dignity. Euthanasia may involve taking a human’s life, but not all forms of killing are wrong nor consider as murder. It depends on the underlying reasons and intentions. If you value a person’s life and the cause of death is for the patient’s benefit and not one’s personal interest, then euthanasia is permissible.
There are many different takes on the distinction between killing and letting die. Direct killing is designed as a direct action to kill a person. Yet, letting die is designed to reduced pain and suffering. Some argue that there is no difference in the two, but others argue there is a significant difference. Rachels, Nesbitt, and Callahan all argue their claims about the distinctions of killing and letting die. Altogether, they have very insightful arguments and each should be considered carefully.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?