The Important Role of Intentions and Outcomes in Euthanasia “I don’t want to die, I’m not suicidal; I just simply cannot go on living this way anymore.” As a hospice volunteer I have seen every psychological stage of the dying. It’s hard to watch someone go through the emotional rollercoaster that accompanies the knowledge of imminent death. Mary was one of my residents for over 6 months, when she first arrived at the inpatient unit it seemed as if she had nothing wrong with her. In the early months I would sit with her and talk about her life, read books with her, and occasionally play a game of cards. She confided in me intimate details of her life, and I looked forward to visiting with her every week. Around the 4th month …show more content…
Active euthanasia is the act of giving the means to a terminally ill patient to cause their death. Whereas, passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of treatment, or the failure to treat with the intention of causing the patient’s death. I believe that there is no moral difference between assisting someone to die on their own terms, and not allowing for interventions to take place in order to sustain the life of a person. In both of these cases the patient in question made the autonomous decision to not continue with their life in this way. The outcome is the same in both scenarios. In each of these a person is relieved of their suffering, through a means of death. The person assisting in reaching this outcome had the pure intention of respecting the patient’s wishes in both cases. The result of death for these patients is a more favorable outcome than any form of prolonged life.
The importance in determining the lack of distinction lies in intentions. For instance say a doctor is very tired and simply wants to go home, but a person with a severe gunshot wound comes to him and is bleeding profusely. The doctor knows that surgery to repair this injury will take a very long time, and he is not even sure that it will work. Instead of treating this patient the doctor lets the man bleed to death in a
“‘I’m scared stiff. I used to talk about killing myself’ . . . ‘I don’t want to die now. It ain’t long enough. Sixteen years ain’t long enough. I wouldn’t mind it so much if there wasn’t so much stuff I ain’t done yet and so many things I ain’t seen. It’s not fair.’”
Active and passive euthanasia has been a controversial topic for many decades. Medicine has become so advanced, even the most ill patients can be kept alive by artificial means. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action taken to end a person’s life, such as lethal dose of medication (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2014). Passive euthanasia is allowing a person to die by not intervening or stopping a treatment that is keeping them alive (Garrard, 2014). There are three main arguments within this issue; Firstly, in the healthcare setting, it is morally accepted to allow a patient to die but purposely killing a patient is not (Garrard, 2014). Secondly, some people believe there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia can be defined as letting the patient die. The doctor takes the patient off their treatment and let the disease run through until they die. Active euthanasia is not legal today, and leans more toward killing the patient. The patient is ready to die so the doctor gives a lethal injection to speed up the process. Physician assisted suicide is almost a combination
To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.
Blanche’s baths represent the shedding of lies and negativity from her life. She is seeking a new beginning but unfortunately due to Stanley will not be given that chance. Stanley makes sure that his wife hears what he knows before Blanche tells her otherwise. He makes sure todo it when Blanche can’t defend herself. Stanley’s motive is to get Blanche out of the house and to never return.
Active euthanasia means that someone other than the patient commits an action with the intent to end a patient’s life, for example injecting a patient with a lethal dose. Voluntary euthanasia is when a patient asks for help in committing suicide or is refusing treatment. Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a patient is unable to make his or her own decisions such as: a person in a coma, an infant, a person who is senile, or a person who is mentally unstable. Physician assisted suicide is when a physician provides medication or other means to a patient with the understanding that the patient intends to commit suicide. (Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?,
Active versus passive euthanasia are two different, albeit arguably similar, ways in which an individual is helped to die. Passive euthanasia involves withholding life-saving medical treatment or removal from life
In James Rachel’s article Active and Passive Euthanasia, James provides the argument that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia because in the end, either through inaction or action, it both results in death and there are no moral differences in ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. Rachel provides several different arguments to support his case including a patient dying of terminal cancer, and two uncles and the death of their nephews.
According to Webster’s dictionary the term euthanasia Is defined as, “ the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering.” Now then there are two primary types of euthanasia according to Rachel’s. We have Passive Euthanasia in which the physician does nothing to bring about the death of the patient. By this physician doing nothing, ceasing treatment, the patient dies of the illness he already was diagnosed with. The patient dies of natural causes. The doctor is therefore letting the patient die. Then we have Active Euthanasia were the physician does something to bring about the death of the patient. The physician gives the terminally ill patient a lethal injection therefore now making the doctor the
The fact that passive euthanasia is already practised can be an argument for voluntary active euthanasia. If it was legalised then it would show consistency. Both would be carried out for the same reason of lessening the amount of pain suffered by the patient. Only the means are different, the intentions are the same.
According to Rachels, “It is [incorrect] to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he does do one thing that is very important: he lets the patient die. "Letting someone die" is certainly different, in some respects, from other types of action - mainly in that it is a kind of action that one may perform by way of not performing certain other actions. (Rachels, 79)” Inaction in itself is still an action. A person makes a decision to respond or not to respond. The decision is the act. The central question for debate is do we have a right as a nation to evaluate another person’s level of suffering?
Active euthanasia is commonly confused with physician assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is performed “when a physician, at a rational request of an adequately informed, competent patient who plans to commit suicide, knowingly provides that patient with the medical means…and the patient uses those means to commit suicide” (Gert). Through this method, a physician does not “actively” kill the person, but simply provides the person with the means to end their own life. For example, a doctor gives a patient an injection of a morphine that is sufficient to cause their death, but does not administer it. In the other hand, a physician “actively” kills a patient to end his or her suffering in active euthanasia. For instance, a physician either overdoses the patient with pain-killers or sleeping pills. Although they are done differently, they both have the same purpose of ending a person’s suffering and pain.
To clarify, active voluntary euthanasia occurs when a medical practitioner deliberately and directly causes the death of a patient with means such as with lethal injection. Physician assisted suicide happens when patient-requested, pharmaceutical means are provided for that patient to end his or her own life (Emanuel, Ezekiel J., et al. "Attitudes and practices of
Does your student speak a language other than English at home? Do any of his/her family members speak a language other than English?
According to Hashish, Hamouda, and Taha (2015), conflict is healthy, common, and necessary for growth and Losa Iglesias and Becerro De Bengoa Vallejo (2012) have noted that conflict has been a vital factor of social functioning throughout history and the present, which has been widely defined in the literature.