Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
ethical arguments against euthanaisa
ethical dilemma about euthanasia
ethical arguments against euthanaisa
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: ethical arguments against euthanaisa
“Active and Passive Euthanasia,” by James Rachels, makes a strong case over the doctrine permitting certain Euthanasia’s. This doctrine, adopted by the “House of Delegates of the American Medical Association” in 1973 (p. 302), states that, it is permissible for doctors to withhold medical treatment allowing a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take direct actions designed to kill the patient. Rachels disputes against this doctrine. Rachels’ core arguments is against the dispute that killing, in itself, is worse than letting die (p.302). Many prohibitionists believe there are important moral differences between active and passive euthanasia. But is there? While one is considered murder, the other is letting nature pan out. Rachels argument suggests this claim invalid. Recall Rachels example of two cousins in sticky situations. The author explains a circumstance in which a man, Smith, is in line for a hefty inheritance behind his 6 year old cousin. Overpowered by greed, Smith enters a restroom where the child is bathing, and drowns the child making it look like an accid...
In “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels, he believed that if the American Medical Association (AMA) accepts passive euthanasia, then active euthanasia should be permitted as well since passive euthanasia tends to cause more pain and suffering to the patient more than active euthanasia does, and both end with death. In “The Intentional Termination of Life” by Bonnie Steinbock, she does not argue against euthanasia, but instead, she focuses on the intention of doctors in the act of euthanasia. She believes that in certain cases of passive euthanasia, there could be other reasons to the act of removing or withholding treatment other than
According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348). He points out two
I disagree with Rachels’ argument. In another argument by Daniel Callahan. Callahan believes euthanasia is morally impermissible. He believes that killing is worse than letting die. In Rachels’ conclusion is where I see the biggest problem. Rachels says killing vs letting die is a bad reason for preferring passive over active, but in Callahan’s paper he brings 2 important questions that people often associate with each other that he says are actually two separate questions. What caused the patient to die? Who is blame worthy of the patient’s death? The answer to the first question is answered by the person doing the autopsy. Autopsies are performed by a pathologist. Pathologist is a trained scientist that studied
There are many different stances one can take when considering active euthanasia versus passive euthanasia. Perhaps one may believe killing someone is far worse than letting someone die, or that there is no difference between killing and letting die. Rachels and Nesbit have different stances on killing versus letting die, both using the nasty cousins argument as an example. Rachels tries to show that there is no difference between killing and letting die and Nesbitt tries to show that killing is worse than letting die. Though Rachels and Nesbitt have well thought through views and examples, perhaps there is not just one side a reader can take, as it seems Rachels and Nesbitt have tried to make their readers believe. Perhaps both views are okay
Overall, Rachels states that although active euthanasia is prohibited, doctors should be aware that the law is forcing them to follow a predetermined moral doctrine and not their own personal moral beliefs (Timmons, 2007, p.349). The main take away from this argument is that the 1973 AMA policy forbids active euthanasia and allows some cases of passive euthanasia where the doctor is permitted to let the patient die, however, Rachels strongly believes that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia (Timmons, 2007,
An innumerable amount of individuals believe that life is a beautiful, extraordinary, and overall amazing gift. So, why would a human being choose to have this remarkable gift taken away from him or her? The answer to this question is quite simple. All over the world people are in such immense pain and suffering, that their last wish is for their lives to be taken away in a peaceful approach. The solution to a painless death is euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, commonly referred to as PAS. Active euthanasia is the process of inducing death upon a human being in a harmless, painless, and gentle way by an injection. Passive euthanasia is the removal of life-support or stopping treatments that may keep the patient alive for longer (Gale). Both forms of Euthanasia are done only with the consent of the patient who wishes to bring their life to an end. Death is the last chance of peace for many people, and euthanasia makes this possible.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
The morality of active euthanasia and whether or not it should be legalized is quite a controversial topic within the medical field that has long been debated by many philosophers. Active euthanasia is one of two forms of euthanasia, which is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering a terminal illness that is considered incurable. Active euthanasia is when one actively brings about the death of a terminally ill patient through a specific act. This is in contrast to passive euthanasia, the other form of euthanasia, in which one merely ‘lets’ a terminally ill patient die by not doing the things necessary to keep the patient alive. I believe active euthanasia is both immoral and should not be legalized.
While active euthanasia involves the deliberate ending of a patient’s life, passive euthanasia occurs when a necessary treatment process is simply not performed by med...
Philosophers like Peter Singer and Margaret Battin have dedicated their personal and professional time to evaluating the choice to which a person has the right to continue to live or to die. In order to do this, we first have to examine what exactly euthanasia is. The practice of euthanasia can be classified in two different ways. First, euthanasia can be either active or passive. Active euthanasia involves the direct interruption of ongoing daily functioning that otherwise would be adequate to maintain life. Passive euthanasia involves the withholding or withdrawing of treatment that might support ongoing daily functions; without drugs or treatment the body would continue its process of shutting down. In the case of passive euthanasia, the argument can be made that the treatment is actually withholding the natural process of death. Secondly, euthanasia can be divided into three categories based on a level of consciousness: involuntary (death against ones wishes), voluntary (death based on expressed wishes), and non-voluntary (incapable of consent or competent decision-making).
One area of moral dilemma that requires our attention is regarding euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of ending life in order to relieve pain or suffering caused by a terminal illness. Euthanasia can further be divided into two subcategories active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the process of deliberately causing a person’s death. In passive euthanasia a person does not take any action and just allows the person to die. In many countries, the thought of euthanasia is morally detestable. However, many doctors find nothing wrong with allowing a terminally ill patient to decide to refuse medication. This decision is a form of passive euthanasia the doctor did not actively cause the patient’s death, but he did nothing to prevent the patient’s death. Failing to act and directly acting is not the same as not being responsible for the consequences of an event.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. 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
Is it right to intentionally bring about the death of a person? The vast majority of people would instinctively answer this question “no,” unless it related to an act of war or perhaps self-defense. What if taking the life of the person would benefit that person by ending their suffering? Would it be morally acceptable to end their suffering? Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as “bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person” (Pojman). The term implies that the death is intentional. Because there are several different types of euthanasia, it is difficult to make a blanket statement concerning the morality of euthanasia. This paper will discuss the particular morality of the passive and active forms of involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary euthanasia. I believe that voluntary passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, while all other forms of euthanasia are ultimately immoral.
Because passive euthanasia is accepted by the American Medical Association in cases where it is clear the patient has no reasonable hope of living without the aid of a machine, passive euthanasia is not as controversial as active euthanasia. This paper will focus on the controversial morality issues regarding active voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the ending of a persons life by lethal injection with or without the patients consent. Unless oth...
There exist three different types of euthanasia: active, passive and voluntary. Active euthanasia refers to the process of injection of painkillers and sleeping pills in order to reduce the time of suffering of a patient by making his death less painful. On the other side, voluntary euthanasia refers to the case of the conscientious patient, who voluntarily demands from the doctor to give up on treatments. In this case the patient is conscious that he will die soon and regardless that stops the treatments. In my discussion related to whether euthanasia should be legalized or not I will refer only to active and voluntary euthanasia arguments.