In 1973 the American Medical Association adopted a statement forbidding ‘mercy killing’ but allowing the cessation of treatment when requested by an incurable patient. In his essay “Active and Passive Euthanasia” James Rachels argues that active euthanasia should be avoided only to satisfy the law, not because of any perceived moral difference between active and passive. Rachels’ essay gives a convincing, logical argument to allow active euthanasia in certain cases. Rachels questions the doctrine that the AMA sets forth regarding intentional termination versus not using extraordinary means. He points out that in some cases withholding treatment can cause more pain and longer suffering. His argument may be questionable because he neglects to discuss the option of increased pain medication to alleviate suffering. In the case of a Downs syndrome infant born with other defects such as intestinal obstruction the choice is sometimes made to let the baby die. However, when the Downs syndrome infant is otherwise healthy you are not allowed to kill it. Basically the decision is be...
Active Euthanasia: Physician Assisted Suicide is Wrong? The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek word meaning "good death."
Euthanasia is a controversy that cannot be resolved from a single court ruling or a single person’s opinion. Many proposals have been suggested based on various studies and surveys. In “You Say Murder, I Say Euthanasia,” Clair Rayner describes a notable proposal regarding extreme euthanasia cases. The proposal, which has been put into the Science of Museum forum, recommends complex cases to be considered individually. In “Assisted Suicide Largely Shunned,” the anonymous author offers statistics that oppose the ethics of euthanasia.
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.
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
It allows for a highly questionable distinction between killing and letting die, which, if accepted, lead to indefensible medical decisions. Sullivan chooses to focus on the integrity of the Doctrine. The AMA Doctrine delivers the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary care. Ordinary care is obtained without excessive expense, pain or other inconvenience, while, extraordinary care is all treatment that does not fall under ordinary care and attempts to prolong the life of a terminally ill patient. The Doctrine can be considered a simple prohibition of murder, ensuring that doctors do not without ordinary care, because doing so would be considered killing. Rachels example seen convincing because they deal with withholding ordinary care but he fails to distinguish ordinary from extraordinary, then attacks the lack of ordinary care. This can be found in the Downs Syndrome Baby example, where severe down’s syndrome babies born with intestinal obstructions. Sometimes in such cases the baby is permitted to die. Rachels argues that in such cases we find compelling moral grounds for preferring active euthanasia to passive euthanasia in the vastly greater degree of suffering involved in letting the baby die. The AMA policy, strictly interpreted, seems to allow newborn Down Syndrome babies to die from intestinal blockages, though this is not the reason that parents think it best to let the babies die. Sullivan would deem that if the baby is suffering and their quality of life would not be adequate then the baby should be permitted to die. In the case of the Downs Syndrome Baby it would be permissible to withhold extraordinary care, according to Sullivan. The doctor, in removing extraordinary care, does not intend to kill the patient, but to spare the baby any suffering that may be endured through extraordinary
I have argued that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, but many people are already okay with passive euthanasia because they believe the cause of death is different from active euthanasia so to some people passive euthanasia is the only morally acceptable one, and active euthanasia is the one that is morally impermissible. Both active and passive euthanasia are difficult things to accept because they both involve death and people are generally uncomfortable when it comes to that topic. I argue now that active euthanasia is more acceptable than passive euthanasia, not because of the morality between the two (because morally they are the same), but because active euthanasia is the one that ends the pain and suffering more
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.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are suffering from euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia is letting someone die naturally and thought to be merciful hi the event of tragedy or illness. It is a kindness offered to prevent suffering. Active euthanasia is direct killing by means of medication either with or without the person's consent (Legg, 2017). Though people that have a right to life also have a right to death with dignity, directly killing/dying is morally worse than letting someone die. I believe the question that lies within is 'Is there intent to harm' when it comes to euthanasia and is the person who passively allows someone to die consented to do so? Though sometimes it may seem more merciful to actively euthanize or commit suicide, these are not morally acceptable. Even if the person expresses consent
McManaman, Doug. A. “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified.” Assisted Suicide. Ed. Nol Merino.
I know some families get an abortion because their baby has Down syndrome.