Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
The slippery slope argument claims that if an action, such as euthanasia, were to be permitted, then society will be led down the slippery slope, or be permitting other actions that are morally wrong, “in general form, it means that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted” (“Anti-euthanasia”). The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics concluded it is virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia are truly voluntary. The idea that patients should have the right to decide when to end their life would impose on the doctors a duty to kill, thus... ... middle of paper ... ...not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends. It affirms life and regards death as a normal process, neither hastening nor postponing death, but providing relief from suffering” (“Anti-euthanasia”).
Many see euthanasia as inhumane and religiously erroneous, but we must view this decision from the eyes of the suffering patient. The rights we are given and promised should include the right to death, in the event that it will do more good than harm to the individual. Due to such reasons, euthanasia should be legalized and deemed one of the matters that the government does not have a hand in.
According to the first perspective, it is unethical insofar as it interferes with God’s wishes that a person die. In relation to the second, the unethical aspect emerges from the fact that many doctors are no longer fulfilling their professional duty to reduce suffering but are, in reality, prolonging and intensifying it. Thus, to support passive euthanasia means supporting traditional religious and medical ethics. That is, the simple right to a natural and humane death, with as little extension of suffering as possible.
It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two types. Supporters of active euthanasia base their defense on "One, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person for his or her life to be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and/or indignity. Two, the individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others; since no one is harmed by terminally ill patients' undergoing active euthanasia..." (Mappes 57). The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong.
And who has the right to deny a person a peaceful ending to their life and stop the suffering permanently? Euthanasia is a very controversial topic and those in favour argue that it’s the patients choice what they do with their life in cases of terminal illnesses the death is inevitable so what is the point in prolonging the process? Others argue that Voluntary euthanasia will eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia and the termination of people deemed as undesirable. A strong ethical argument against the use of euthanasia is that, Lord Walton, chairman of a House of Lords committee looking into euthanasia says: “We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.” Since involuntary euthanasia is indistinguishable from murder it will be hard to identify and regulate murder cases as they can be passed off as involuntary euthanasia leading to the severity of murder as a crime being mediocre since people can escape the consequence using euthanasia. There is also concern that doctors are bestowed with too much power and... ... middle of paper ... ... used in other situations other than terminal illness is old age and being able to die with dignity before they are unable to go through with simple tasks such as going toilet alone, this is usually they don’t burden their families and retain pride.
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. Rachels’ first premise is, “passive euthanasia (i.e., withholding treatment) is permissible in part because it ends a patient’s suffering”. He then supports this premise by providing a quote from the American Medical Association. This quote essentially states that the intentional killing of one human being by another (in this case, active euthanasia) goes against the AMA and is therefore wrong.
Active Euthenasia – From A Kantian Perspective Euthanasia is one of society's more widely debated moral issues of our time. Active euthanasia is; "Doing something, such as administering a lethal drug, or using other ways that will cause a person's death." In the other hand, Passive euthanasia is; "Stopping (or not starting) a treatment, that will make a person die, the condition of the person will cause his or her death." It seems that this one is not to debate, as much as the other one (active). I have chosen to look more closely at the issue of active euthanasia, and that it should not be considered ethical, by Kantian standards.
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?
We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia. Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be.