Brock's Arguments Against Active Voluntary Euthanasia

The concept of brain-dead patients directs attention when determining the life of a patient. Brain-death is when functions of a patient’s body are terminated (mainly lungs, heart, and the brain) that will not allow a patient to survive. Machines are used in order to keep the heart and lungs operating, while the brain is unresponsive. In his view, philosopher Robert Truog points out problems when testing for brain-death. Truog establishes problems that come up when testing for brain-death which include the body being hyperthermic as well as the assistance of machines to keep a brain-dead patient alive. When a patient’s body is hyperthermic, the patient’s body is in shock and the brain is the only thing trying to regulate the temperature of

Euthanasia is considered to be “a good death,” which allows a patient to die without pain. Active voluntary euthanasia is a procedure which expedites the process of a terminally ill patient to die quicker. In his argument, Philosopher Daniel Brock supports the reasoning that active voluntary euthanasia should be allowed. In one of his arguments, Brock develops based on the overall “well-being” of the patient. The “well-being” of a patient is the patient’s interest in living. This deals with a terminally ill patient’s autonomy to determine if their life is still worth living. If there is a patient who is terminally ill and suffering a tremendous amount of pain, then they have the right to terminate treatment. If they have the right to terminate treatment, then they have the right to end their life by not receiving treatment. This is morally permissible under Brock because it serves the patient’s best interest to end their life to be relieved from pain and suffering. Although it is important to respect the wishes and autonomy of a patient, there are objections to this

Brock claims that killing an innocent human being is morally wrong. In the process of active voluntary euthanasia, the life of a terminally ill patient is ending. If treatment is withdrawn, then the patient is being left to die, which is unethical. Another reason to not accept active voluntary euthanasia is that it questions the moral status of medical professionals. Medical professionals are seen as moral, ethical sources. If active voluntary euthanasia became permissible, then their moral status would be questioned because they would be killing patients. As you can see there are moral dilemmas on the issue, and an executive decision is hard to make when both sides promote reasonable