I have argued that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, but many people are already okay with passive euthanasia because they believe the cause of death is different from active euthanasia so to some people passive euthanasia is the only morally acceptable one, and active euthanasia is the one that is morally impermissible. Both active and passive euthanasia are difficult things to accept because they both involve death and people are generally uncomfortable when it comes to that topic. I argue now that active euthanasia is more acceptable than passive euthanasia, not because of the morality between the two (because morally they are the same), but because active euthanasia is the one that ends the pain and suffering more …show more content…
Some say that with passive euthanasia the doctor does not actually know whether the patient will die and so stopping treatment is okay because it lets nature take its course. The patient is dying from a natural cause which is what makes passive euthanasia okay. Daniel Callahan, author of the article “Vital Distinctions, Mortal Questions: Debating Euthanasia and Health Care Costs”, argues that there is a distinction between passive and active euthanasia. He claims the difference between the two is what is causing the death. In terms of active euthanasia, the action of the doctor is what is physically causing the death of the patient, however, in the case of passive euthanasia allowing someone to die from a disease that is incurable is letting the disease act as the cause of death instead of the doctor. In this example, the cause of the death is different, therefore active and passive euthanasia are different. Thomas Fuchs, author of “The Notion of Killing” also agrees that there is a distinction between the two types of euthanasia. Fuchs states that the difference between killing and letting die is on the level of causality, in terms of the biological dimensions. Killing is described as an external impact on an organism, by another, causing the death of the organism. Letting die in described as the means in giving way to the ongoing process of self-disintegration. In active euthanasia, the doctor becomes the cause of death where in passive euthanasia the doctor allows the patient to succumb to their own death, and is not considered
Euthanasia is put into two categories: Passive and Active. In Passive Euthanasia, doctors will i...
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
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
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).
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."
* Passive, indirect or negative euthanasia: ambiguous. Can be the decision by patient, parent or guardian and physician to withhold or withdraw extraordinary means of sustaining or prolonging life, such as deciding against high-risk surgery for a patient dying of cancer or kidney failure. When the intent is not to cause death but rather to reject extraordinary treatment, this results in the acceptance of death or continued life, whichever occurs, but it is not true euthanasia. The terms "passive," "indirect" or "negative euthanasia" should not be used since they play into the hands of euthanasia advocates by confusing legitimate actions with euthanasia, thereby desensitizing people to the fact that euthanasia is killing. More importantly, passive euthanasia is sometimes defined by others as the withholding of lifesaving treatment with the intention and result of causing the patient's death. This is the equivalent to active, direct euthanasia.
There are two main classifications of euthanasia: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is conducted with the consent of the patient while involuntary euthanasia is conducted without consent from the patient themselves, but with the consent from another person. With this, there are two procedural classifications of euthanasia which include passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia happens when life-sustaining treatments are withheld – the doctor doesn’t “know” that the patient
The American Medical Association (AMA) defines euthanasia in its Code of Ethics as the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient with the purpose of relieving the patient's intolerable and incurable suffering (qtd. in Frey). Euthanasia is categorized in two ways; as active or passive, and as either voluntary or involuntary. The first category refers to the means of ending life, and the second refers to the decision-making. Active euthanasia is associated with the merciful death act, while passive euthanasia involves withholding the medical care or not doing something to prevent death. When talking about voluntary euthanasia, is the patient the one that makes the r...
While active euthanasia involves the deliberate ending of a patient’s life, passive euthanasia occurs when a necessary treatment process is simply not performed by med...
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
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.
There are many different stances one can take when considering active euthanasia versus passive euthanasia. Perhaps one may believe killing someone is far worse than letting someone die, or that there is no difference between killing and letting die. Rachels and Nesbit have different stances on killing versus letting die, both using the nasty cousins argument as an example. Rachels tries to show that there is no difference between killing and letting die and Nesbitt tries to show that killing is worse than letting die. Though Rachels and Nesbitt have well thought through views and examples, perhaps there is not just one side a reader can take, as it seems Rachels and Nesbitt have tried to make their readers believe. Perhaps both views are okay
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.
Euthanasia is an assisted death to those with incurable diseases who wish to die peacefully instead of going through pain and suffering; on the other hand, euthanasia can be seen as legalized murder and used for the selfishness of family members. Since euthanasia has been legalized in the United States, debate has developed from the different views whether it is deliberate killing or an end to unbearable suffering. Also, there are two different kinds of euthanasia; passive euthanasia, which would be pulling the plug on life support as opposed to active euthanasia, which is an actual poisoning shot.
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.