Persuasive Essay On Euthanasia

I sat waiting until my two friends James Rachels and Tom Beauchamp arrived at the café where we were meeting for an afternoon of coffee and discussion regarding euthanasia. They arrived, we placed our order, and we eased into conversation…

Rasel: So I was reading the American Medical Association’s official statement regarding euthanasia that states, “The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another--mercy killing--is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association. The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient

Smith actually killed the child by physically pushing and holding his head under the water until the child was dead, while Jones went into the bathroom with the intent to kill the child but instead he saw the child slip, hit his head, and fall under the water and then just watched the child drown of his own accord without having to physically force the child to die. In both scenarios the men had nefarious plans with intent to kill the young child. Smith physically carried out the act, while Jones watched without providing assistance to save the child, and the end result was the death of the child. In this situation is Jones less culpable than Smith? I pose that there is no moral difference between the actions of these two men. It is clear to me that the AMA implies in its doctrine that there is a moral difference between killing (active euthanasia) and letting die (passive euthanasia). I think I prove with this case that there is no difference here from a moral standpoint, and if passive euthanasia is permissible, then active euthanasia should also be permissible. If a patient near imminent death is in unbearable pain and suffering, and the choice by the patient and his family is to end this suffering, according to the AMA the doctor can withhold further treatment and let the patient die. In some cases

I have some issues with your method and conclusion. It is not very strong, and it does not take into account the AMA’s position based on the types of real life scenarios for which it was intended to address. Let me first address the strength of your argument based on the bathtub scenario. It is true that in your example there is no difference between the moral judgment placed on both Smith and Jones in that there actions were guided by the intent to end in the death of the young child. However, you would have us believe that this scenario proves that morality becomes irrelevant in all cases equally! That is definitely not the case. All you really demonstrate is that in similar cases like the one you describe, morality can be made irrelevant by removing key circumstances of a situation. In reality the AMA did not craft their statement as a universal absolute. The AMA based its decision of cases involving scenarios in which patient suffering, inevitable imminent death, and informed consent of patient and family are involved. This makes the case for justified versus unjustified situations. In your example both Smith and Jones committed unjustified acts with evil intent. You cannot compare your scenario to the cases that are the basis for the AMA’s position. The AMA makes a clear line against non-permissible unjustified killing and permissible justified letting die situations. They make a clear distinction between active killing and