Active Euthanasia Analysis

Callahan’s argument has a different take on active euthanasia. He believes active euthanasia is not morally permissible even with informed consent, because “euthanasia would add a whole new category of killing to a society that already has too many excuses to indulge itself in that way.”(Callahan 625) Callahan talks about the value of self-determination justifying the right for VAE. Showing that even with a competent adult consenting to VAE includes other individuals and which means it is not a matter of self-determination. While VAE does not justify the value of self-determination it is also a usual way to achieve human dignity according to Callahan. The moral distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia is also argued and states that there is a distinction between the omission and commission. His two points are the causality, the relationship between cause and

I related to Callahan’s theory when he speaks about voluntary active euthanasia not only involving the patient’s life, but also involving others. Voluntary active euthanasia is not just a matter of one suffering and having the self-determination to choose to live or die, it is the matter of someone asking to die and others participating in ending their life. Whether this is illegal or nonvoluntary active is morally wrong in my mind and involves more than one party. His theory describes passive euthanasia and how you can’t passively euthanize someone who is already dying. I strongly agree with this theory based on the fact that some deaths happen based on cause and effect aspect. In passive euthanasia we are blaming an individual based on the cause and effect. They may not want the person to die, but may have something to gain. However, those entering the room while someone is dying do not mean they are passively