Voluntary Active Euthanasia Summary

In the case of Dr. Morrison, the situation revolves around the topic of euthanasia, more specifically active euthanasia. In summary, the case is based on a patient who had been living on life support and whose situation was progressively becoming worse. The patient’s condition had deteriorated to the point where he had initially requested “Do Not Resuscitate” (i.e. DNR), and his family eventually asked for the removal of active life support as his condition worsened. However, this is where the situation took a turn for the worse. The removal of life support did not go as expected and resulted in the patient conceivably experiencing pain. As a result, Dr.Morrison injected potassium chloride into the patient in the hope of ending his “suffering”. It is important to note that

Although ending the patient’s life could be questionable, accounts from multiple sources stated that the patient was indeed suffering greatly. “it was beyond the shadow of a doubt the worst death I’ve ever witnessed.” ()This case can clearly be divided into two arguments: pro (non)voluntary active euthanasia and against (non)voluntary active euthanasia. In my opinion, regardless of the situation or the suffering being endured by the patient, a physician should never be allowed to take things into his own hands and end a person’s life. To start off we will begin with the argument for active (non) voluntary euthanasia. As many ethical questions go there are many opinions on this topic. A strong argument for this topic comes when we talk about young sick children. As we know young children do not have full decision-making abilities and thus the parents are made to be the decision-makers, especially in the case of newborn babies. There are examples of mercy killings, where it seems reasonable to euthanize the newborn due to a disease that is greatly affecting the newborn’s life and growth. For example, in the Netherlands, they practice this form of active