Neither Kant nor Mills believe that emotions should play into decisions in both of their respective theories, which is a factor that should be considered when discussing dying patients who want help to go ahead and die. It also makes it hard to decide which philosopher has addressed the ethical problems better because one theory considers strictly consequence and one only considers duty, and it is more efficient to debate on active euthanasia considering the intention of the dying patient and the consequences active euthanasia would bring. In Mill’s theory, the consequences of the person dying cannot really be known because the family could either be devastated or happy they are not suffering, whereas the doctor could experience emotional turmoil
Then the appearance of death was distant, although the wish was ever present to my thoughts; and I often sat for hours motionless and speechless, wishing for some mighty revolution that might bury me and my destroyer in its ruins” (169). Although euthanasia is a minor theme in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein’s low point drives him to consider death as an alternative to suffering. This chapter helps to highlight some present day themes about the ethical issues of euthanasia, such as the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Also, whether or not a medical professional should assist in the process and under what circumstances. Discussion about euthanasia will probably continue in the future.
I believe Rachels’ argument is not successful. In Rachels’ paper he argues that active vs. passive euthanasian is on the same level morally speaking. He shows that by killing vs. letting die has no difference.
Dax Cowart was hospitalized after a gas explosion engulfed his car because he suffered stern burns. He was “burned so severely and [was] in so much pain that [he] did not want to live even the early moments following the explosion.” He repeatedly asked his doctors and family to end his agony. Dianne Pretty had a motor neuron disease that instigates a painful death. She wanted to have “a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by [her] family.” 85-year old Mary Ormerod was starved of nutrients after she went into a coma. Her doctor and daughter made the decision to end her torment, however the doctor got suspended in doing so (BBC).
Voluntary euthanasia is defined as the act of killing someone painlessly, especially to relieve suffering from an incurable illness, with their consent (Collins English Dictionary, 2013). The morality and legal aspect of voluntary euthanasia has been a debate for many years. Voluntary euthanasia is a significant ethical dilemma that impacts nursing practice and other professionals in the healthcare field. With the utilization of ethical principles and theories, voluntary euthanasia can be deemed appropriate in some situations, but still can be a moral dilemma to those involved. This paper will discuss four people’s opinions about euthanasia that come from four different backgrounds as well as the group’s opinion about euthanasia.
Some philosophers believe that active euthanasia and passive euthanasia are separate entities and are morally different. However, I believe that there is no moral difference between the two, so an act of voluntary euthanasia should not have to be distinguished between active and passive. Euthanasia is defined as the act of killing a patient to avoid suffering from a painful disease or a hopeless injury. Death is the result of both active and passive euthanasia. While the term “active” indicates the physician’s intentional choice to end the life of a patient, the term “passive” means that the physician allows the patient to die by withholding life-preserving needs. Although the means of active and passive euthanasia are slightly different, this
In the case of Dr. Morrison, the situation revolves around the topic of euthanasia, more specifically active euthanasia. In summary, the case is based on a patient who had been living on life support and whose situation was progressively becoming worse. The patient’s condition had deteriorated to the point where he had initially requested “Do Not Resuscitate” (i.e. DNR), and his family eventually asked for the removal of active life support as his condition worsened. However, this is where the situation took a turn for the worse. The removal of life support did not go as expected and resulted in the patient conceivably experiencing pain. As a result, Dr.Morrison injected potassium chloride into the patient in the hope of ending his “suffering”. It is important to note that
Pamela Bone was a former journalist and columnist for the Age, an Australian newspaper. She died after a long and painful battle of four years against myeloma. In her advocacy for euthanasia she ones said “I'm not afraid of being dead. I'm just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there.” Bone like many other terminal ill patients only wanted one thing before dying, she wanted euthanasia to become legal and have the right to die on her own terms. In the ongoing controversial discussion of legalizing euthanasia, terminal ill people argue that they should be entitled to decide when to die and when to get physician assistance to terminate their lives. On the other hand, opponents argue that euthanasia is unethical, barbaric and goes against the medical Hippocratic Oath.
Many people debate whether the act of Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide is an at of killing or caring. Euthanasia occurs when a patient cannot endure the pain and suffering anymore or if they are terminally ill. If making the decision to perform Euthanasia is agreed upon it consists of directly giving the lethal medication to the patient. The philosopher, James Rachels believed Active Euthanasia under certain circumstances was morally acceptable. I agree with James Rachels for many reasons and also believe Kantian beliefs come into play when considering Euthanasia.
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.
The position paper took a stand against euthanasia, questioning if it’s morally impermissible in regards to the dependency thesis. This paper will argue that the argument in the position paper was flawed because of the vague description of the term, “religious cultures” and the applications of their beliefs, and the misperception of the scripture, “you must not kill.”
Euthanasia has the meaning of “good death”. Is there actually such a thing as someone having a good death? The controversy behind this is active euthanasia is morally wrong. Active euthanasia is typically done to patients who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and is a way to have an instant death instead of prolonging life. There are some places where euthanasia is already legally admissible, but people are thinking of making this act of killing legal throughout the country. I shall prove to you that actively killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
Active euthanasia should not be allowed in the United States of America. In order to reject euthanasia, a few distinctions must be made. Passive euthanasia refers to the cessation of medical care, whereas active euthanasia refers to a physician administering a drug or procedure to end the life of a patient, both ultimately leading to the death of the patient (Hemsen & ten Have, 2002, p. 521). Essentially, passive euthanasia leads to death by omission and active euthanasia leads to death through an act. Active euthanasia is also commonly referred to as physician assisted suicide. Although attempted suicide is currently illegal in the United States, those who are terminally ill or those with life-threatening injuries can choose to die by refusing
Within the medical community euthanasia is a controversial issue which arises when the death could be a viable and acceptable alternative to life. According to Medical News Today, euthanasia is defined as “a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable, persistent, and unstoppable suffering.” The practice has been deemed illegal in a variety of countries and states, but some people may sympathize with the patient’s desire to end suffering through death. With all the medical advances over time, society has been able to keep individuals biologically alive. Yet certain terminal diseases could cause so much suffering and pain that some people rather die instantly then wait to live for only a bit longer. A
We arrive into this world without a choice; and depart just the same. In the movie “Million Dollar Baby”, Maggie Fitzgerald’s fictional character is a prime example active euthanasia. Maggie’s decision to die is morally acceptable, but it is not ethically acceptable by philosopher James Rachels’ argument. Maggie’s decision was not ethically permissible because she violated Kant’s categorical imperative “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end” by asking her trainer, Frankie Dunn, to kill her. Rachels’ argument shows that Maggie’s euthanasia, her decision to die, was morally acceptable. However, Rachels’ never mentions ethics in his argument on the “Morality of Euthanasia”. We cannot conclude from Rachels’ argument that Maggie’s choice was ethically acceptable. James Rachels’ argument on euthanasia does not render Maggie’s Fitzgerald’s decision to die, ethically acceptable.