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.
Euthanasia may even bring about happiness in that it is what the person desires and wants, in order to no longer to be a burden to his/her family. Also, Euthanasia would stop the pain and not prolong the dying process. In the utilitarian point of view we all have a duty to our happiness, and a duty to the society. Euthanizing a person based on the society aspect makes sense. With greater and greater emphasis put on managed care today, many doctors are at a financial risk when they provide treatments to patients who are in the dying process.
Callahan first goes on to state that euthanasia is different from suicide in that it involves not only the right of a person to self-determination, but the transfer of the right to kill to the acting agent (presumably a physician) as well. This right, however, is temporary and restricted to killing the patient only. It is not clear why this temporary transfer makes euthanasia wrong, for if this is wrong, then letting a patient die (in the case where the patient already has the assistance of life-supporting equipment) is also wrong, if there is no distinction between killing and letting die. So, we must return to this argument after addressing Callahan's claims of a distinction between killing and allowing to die. The argument for the distinction is based on the cause of death.
Instead of considering death for a loved one, focus on creating cures and being optimistic about the situation. In conclusion, euthanasia is a freedom of choice and people have their own personal reasons to do so but it is not a practice that should be legalized. It is morally incorrect due to the fact that it could be compared to murder, anything such as recovery and miracles can happen to the sufferer and it sends out a negative message to the society. It violates the nature and dignity of human beings and is a wrongful death because its is not just dying, it is killing. Oxford University defines euthanasia as "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma" but since when was "killing" ever an option?
“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.
Although the general public does not recognize passive euthanasia as doctor assisted suicide it is still a form of euthanasia that is technically legal. Passive euthanasia is when the underlying cause of death is the disease. When terminally ill people refuse to be kept alive by machines or medication, which is within their legal rights, they’re aiding in the advancement of their own death, which is a form of passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when the cause of death is inflicted by the physician in an already dying patient. Active euthanasia places the blame upon the physician because they are the primary cause of death, this is why active euthanasia is illegal and seen as much worse than passive.
Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering. In the majority of countries, euthanasia is against the law because it is illegal to help someone kill themselves, not matter the severity of the circumstances. Euthanasia is simply unjustified. As humans we are granted the right to live, not to die, and so taking a life that you have been blessed with is not an honorable or appropriate option. If society accepts euthanasia, it will weaken society’s high view of life.
When someone is in pain and has decided enough is enough, they have the right to make that stop. Assisted suicide and euthanasia has been blown out of proportion and demonized by people who are not in a situation dire enough to have to consider it. If someone wants to fight until the very end let them, but that does not mean the people who no longer wishes to fight has to live. Morally speaking, helping someone end their own life is permissible, and should be legalized across the
The good thing is that the person receive physician-assisted suicide (euthanasia) does not have to suffer anymore. They will finally be at peace and not in pain. Anyone in that much pain under the right circumstances should have the right to have physician-assisted suicide. “The compassion argument”, “Supporters of euthanasia believe that allowing people to ‘die with dignity’ is better than forcing them to continue their lives with suffering”. (CARE 2010) However it is not okay for people without an untreatable disease or unbearable pain to commit suicide.
In such cases, the person involved is not killed(the first essential aspect of euthanasia), not is the death of the on intended by the withholding of extra treatment (the third essential aspect of euthanasia). The aim may be to spare the person more and unjustifiable pain, to save him from the indignities of ... ... middle of paper ... ...age of Euthanasia. The quality of health care will decline. Physicians will not try as hard to save their patients lives because their would be an easy way out. Those unfortunate patients that receive misdiagnosis would end their lives for no reason.