The Intentional Termination Of Life Bonnie Steinbock Summary

In Bonnie Steinbock's "The Intentional Termination of Life," the author tries to validate and refute statements against the American Medical Association (AMA) policy released in 1978. She unravels common misconceptions that many, including James Rachels, have about what the AMA's policy says and euthanasia. Contrary to popular belief, what the statement really says is that if a doctor feels like the treatment the patient is receiving isn't doing anything to save their life and instead causing unnecessary pain, then under the patient's consent, they are able to withdraw any treatment they were providing them with. She argues that it is the right of the patient to receive or consent to any treatment, and the policy isn't just a means to allow a patient to die without helping them. If this were the case, then even she herself could see the contradiction in logic between active and passive euthanasia. To further back up her argument, Steinbock gives an example as to when doctors realize that a patient suffering through cancer will no longer make it, no matter how much treatment they receive. At this point, the patient can consent to be taken off of treatment, but this would not necessarily mean that this is an intentional termination of life, and rather it is a means of living out the rest of their life without suffering through the

pains of any treatment they were previously giving you.

Some may argue about the case of the baby with the down syndrome child born with an issue with his intestines that could be easily repaired through a corrective surgery.

Although it may seem like a doctor would be allowing a baby to just die because he is mentally ill, this is not the case according to Steinbock. The parents of the baby would be held liable if anything did happen to this baby and the doctors cannot force their assistance without any consent, so it would actually be the parents choice to keep the baby alive. Usually, in cases like these, the parents are not convicted of the murder of a child according to multiple

cases.

Personally, I am on the fence with the issue at hand. I feel like if a patient is suffering and has no hope and would like a way to end the suffering quicker then why wouldn't they help him/her? On the other hand, I feel like the legalization of active euthanasia can conversely bring about some problems. For instance, what if a doctor can give his "best medical opinion" and opt that it would be best to let go of a person because the hospital is packed and they need an extra bed? It's a far-fetched idea, but it is indeed possible that a doctor could be working to make more money for the hospital.