Over the past, many people have debated over the moral differences between killing someone and letting them die. In actuality, there is no moral difference between the two forms of euthanasia. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines euthanasia as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent anymore suffering. I assume the standpoint that there are no moral differences between active and passive euthanasia after carefully analyzing the article by James Rachels, “Active & Passive Euthanasia”. In his article, Rachels describes how society views active and passive euthanasia and the moral implications that they bear. Passive euthanasia is when the patient and immediate family request the doctor to withhold …show more content…
In his article Rachels states, "The important difference between active and passive euthanasia is that, in passive euthanasia, the doctor does not do anything to bring about the patient's death and the patient dies of whatever ills already afflict him. In active euthanasia, however, the doctor does something to bring about the patient's death: he kills him (Rachels, 1975). In this quote Rachels explains the major differences between passive and active euthanasia. However, I believe that in passive euthanasia the doctor is still taking an action by choosing to discontinue a patient’s treatment. Furthermore, I find paradoxical that the American Medical Association regards active euthanasia as illegal and unethical but finds permissible passive euthanasia. To show why active euthanasia is no different than passive euthanasia morally speaking, Rachels presents two cases. These two cases in fact prove that there is no moral difference between killing and letting someone die. In the first case he presents Smith, which can gain a large inheritance if anything were to happen to his six-year-old cousin. Smith chooses to drown the child and then makes it looks like an accident so he can access the inheritance. In the second case Rachels presents Jones, who also stands to gain an inheritance if anything were to happen to his six-year-old cousin. Jones plans to drown his little cousin in the shower; however, just as he enters the bathroom the child falls and hits himself in the head. He stands there and watches him die without doing absolutely anything. In fact, he stands there waiting to murder the child if he happens to survive the fall. The difference is that Smith actively murdered the child while Jones stood there and let him die. I believe that there is no moral
Euthanasia is put into two categories: Passive and Active. In Passive Euthanasia, doctors will i...
James Rachels tells us in his article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” about two cases that involve in killing and letting die. He believes that there is no morally difference between killing and letting them die. I openly agree with the reasons James Rachels provided in his article. He gives us two different situations where one is involved in killing and another letting them die. Smith and Jones were planning on getting a decent amount of money from the death of their nephew, so they wanted the child dead.
Meaning, "good death". But the word “euthanasia” today means taking action to achieve a good death. Euthanasia is often used by doctors; the doctor would prepare the patient a lethal dose of drugs and administer the drugs to them or the doctor injects the patient with lethal injections. There are two different forms of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is the hastening of a persons’ death by injections or a different form of assisted suicide while passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatment or medications that are currently keeping the patient alive (Barbuzzi, p.1, 2014). Informed consent from the patient is required for both passive and active euthanasia. . According to the Barbuzzi, informed consent is, “A patient’s expression of knowledge and acceptance of the risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options of a medical procedure and subsequent permission to a physician to perform the procedure” (Barbuzzi, p.1 2014).Suicide, self-deliverance, auto-euthanasia, aid-in-dying, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, physician-assisted dying can all be justified by the supporters of the right to die movement for the following
Both Brittany Maynard and Craig Ewert ultimately did not want to die, but they were aware they were dying. They both suffered from a terminal illness that would eventually take their life. Their worst fear was to spend their last days, in a state of stress and pain. At the same time, they would inflict suffering on their loved ones as their family witnessed their painful death. Brittany and Craig believed in the notion of dying with dignity. The states where they both resided did not allow “active voluntary euthanasia or mercy killing at the patient’s request” (Vaughn 269). As a result, they both had to leave their homes to a place that allowed them to get aid in dying. Brittany and Craig were able to die with dignity and peace. Both avoiding
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
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).
* 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.
Euthanasia is defined as the act of assisting people with death in order to end their suffering, without the backing of a legal authority. There are two types of euthanasia that people consider: from the view of an outsider, the person is not in the shoes of someone experiencing extreme amounts of pain, someone may consider it wrong, but in reality the people “helping the patient with death” is generally doing the person a favor, because euthanasia is brought up by the patient. “Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either do not do something necessary to keep the patient alive or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive.” (BBC, 2015) Examples include turning off life support machines, disconnecting a feeding tube, not doing a “life extending” operation, or not taking or giving life extending drugs. The American Hospital Association says that about 70 percent of the deaths that happen in hospitals happen after a decision has been made to withhold treatment. “Active euthanasia occurs when medical professionals, or other individual, deliberately does something that causes the patient to die.”( BBC, 2015). Euthanasia is often considered wrong either way, because when a person thinks about it, what is the real difference between stopping something that is keeping someone
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
Voluntary active euthanasia is when the person is completely aware of the lethal dose of a drug that will cause their bodies to go into organ failure, and eventually the person dies of an unnatural cause. Physician assisted suicide is a form of voluntary euthanasia. In many ways, this can be seen as morally acceptable because the person has full consent of what their choice is. It is a “humane” way to end a person’s life, as the person is said not to feel much during the period of time in which the drug enters the bloodstream. Those who believe in this system say that it should be accepted because you have full consent of the patient and it is done under the supervision of a medical professional. In passive euthanasia they don 't directly take the patient 's life, they just allow them to die. This is a morally unsatisfactory distinction, because, even though a person does not actively kill the patient, they are aware that the result of their inaction will cause their death. Voluntary passive euthanasia allows for the person to die naturally without the assistance of a lethal dose. Normally, these people are extremely ill and the only way they can remain living is through the assistance of machines. In order for this form of euthanasia to occur, doctors simply unplug the person from the machine keeping him or her alive and allow the person to die naturally from their own
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
...an’s argument. I have shown that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is being performed and I have shown that James Rachel’s has great examples on explaining that there is no difference in passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. Thirdly I have shown that James Rachel’s premises follow from his conclusions not just from the conclusion itself. Also I have given one of his main weaknesses in his argument. Moving forward to Sullivan I have explained how his reasons make no sense according to James Rachel’s. I have also shown Sullivan’s main weaknesses and one of his strong points against Rachel’s. I also gave some of Rachel’s weaknesses but after all I think that I have proven that Rachel’s argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan for many reasons. Lastly, I have given my own ideas and theories of which argument I think is better.
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
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.
Rachels has a very strong opinion about the distinction of killing and letting die. He claims that there is little to no moral difference between actively killing and passively letting die (Hilliard, Exam 3 Med Ethics). Rachels states, "The idea