The Morality Of Euthanasia And Euthanasia

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.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

There is a widely shared view that active and passive euthanasia are importantly different. It is said to be one thing (passive euthanasia) to let patients die, which may sometimes be permissible, but it is quite another (active euthanasia) to kill them, which never is. This discrimination between two forms of euthanasia has been forcefully attacked by certain philosophers on the ground that the underlying distinction between killing and letting die is either not clear or, if clear, not morally important. This paper defends that there is distinction between killing and letting die. My first argument that will defend my thesis will be based on the definition of killing or letting to die and the difference in the intentions that accompany the

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia” Rachels demonstrates the similarities between passive and active euthanasia. He claims that if one is permissible, than the other must also be accessible to a patient who prefers that particular fate. Rachels spends the majority of the article arguing against the recommendations of the AMA. The AMA proposes that active euthanasia contradicts what the medical profession stands for. The AMA thinks that ending a person’s life is ethically wrong, yet believes that a competent patient has a right to choose passive euthanasia, meaning to refuse treatment in this case. Rachels makes four claims arguing against that AMA statement.

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels argues that both degrees of euthanasia are morally permissible and the American Medical Association (AMA) policy that supports the conventional doctrine is not sound. Rachels establishes that the conventional doctrine is the belief that, in some cases, passive euthanasia is morally permitted, while active euthanasia, under all circumstances, is

Morality, in its basic sense, can easily be interpreted as a view or a response that is influenced by a culture. Given its conditioned thoughts, a single person may not take a stance where they have the ultimate discretion of what deems the distinction of moral things, and those that are not. Instead of attempting to grasp this larger picture, a second thought to ponder is whether or not there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia. Breaking this argument down a bit more, our ultimate goal is to prove that the acts of killing and letting die are indistinguishable. Philosophers such as Phillipa Foot, believes that there is a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die, however the case she presents is not as easy to influence as is James Rachels’ argument in “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” In opposition to Foot, Rachels creates the argument that there is not a morally relevant distinction between the acts of killing and letting die. Although Rachels presents a more influential case, he also suggest that we should be inclined to change the laws and medical policy around euthanasia. Given this implied suggestion, we must ignore his suggestion, because it is not necessarily inclusive to his conclusion.

Having read and analyzed this article in my opinion Mr. James Rachels successfully argues that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable. First of all and to better understand the position of the author we need to understand the principal concepts involved in this article. We need to define euthanasia and classify the different types of euthanasia. Euthanasia is considered as a good death, it is the act or omission that accelerates the death of a patient sick with no cure, with or without their approval (as in the case of people in a coma), with the intention of stopping suffering and pain. Euthanasia is associated with the end of life to stop or avoid suffering.

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.

James Rachel believes that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia. He gives the example of either drowning a baby or letting a baby drown. Both ends with the baby dying, and in both cases, the intention was to kill the child (pg. 596). He also argues that active euthanasia has a preference to passive euthanasia because it can hasten one's death and prevent them from suffering to death (pg. 594). Rachel also believes that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is unwise and that the distinction should be used by physicians because they have to by law (pg. 594).

The controversy of a doctor assisting their patient who is already dying, end their life sooner to save them from continuous unnecessary pain and agony has been the topic of controversy for years. The practice of euthanasia is in my opinion a mercy and should not be banned because in reality it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. You could say it hurts the patient but then again that patient is already in tremendous pain or in an incapacitated state of no recovery, as in paralyzed or brain damage etc., so in reality it would actually help them by assisting ending their pain by assisted suicide. A doctors job is also always help their patients and the practice of assisted suicide in many ways is actually helping the person. However there has and probably always will be people who do not agree with the idea of a dying person end their life for sooner than nature had intended. This demographic would suggest that by dying by your own hand or assisted by a physician for medical reasons is still considered plain suicide. And for the religious people it is a sin by their beliefs. The people could also argue that it is not a person’s right to make that decision.

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 ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

Death has always been a controversial topic throughout the world. There are many theories as to where we go and what the meaning of life truly is. How one dies is important in today’s society, especially when it comes to the idea of suicide. Active euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering. It is illegal in some places, like France, but allowing patients to die is authorized by law in other places under certain conditions. Doug McManaman constructed an argument, “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” to defend his view that active euthanasia is never morally

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and