The life of a human being is a gift. To treat it in any other way would be degrading life’s inherent worth. Many different moral dilemmas are associated with human euthanasia. The extreme ends of the controversial subject suggests, by the advocates, that euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is a type of mercy killing. On the other end, such assistance, or methods, are considered as a form of murder.
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.
To accomplish euthanasia there is usually an administration of a drug. Another way to achieve euthanasia is by passive euthanasia whereby there is a deliberate withholding of treatment. Euthanasia candidates believe there is a distinct difference between suicide and euthanasia. Euthanasia is repeatedly mistaken for suicide. Many religions like Catholicism have a strong belief against suicide.
For a physician to deny the person his right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively, imposing them to live a life without what they believe is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual could be ended if the patient choose to do so. Although the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand of another person to live a life of suffering, in fact, that is immoral as it removes their right to choose. Euthanasia facilitates the choice making it the sympathetic choice and kind to that person 's
A death where the recipient believes their life is not worth living and they want an end to their suffering. Thanks to modern medicines, the end of suffering can be carried out in a humane way. Therefore to directly associate this commandment to euthanasia is misleading and the text should rather read, 'Thou shalt not help to die'. A majority of the religious opposition to euthanasia comes from the
Euthanasia is a permanent solution to a long term problem. Offering euthanasia to patients who are near death is a controversial topic with a plethora of opinions. Supporters of euthanasia say that it is justified as long as the patient gives permission. Euthanasia is not justifiable due to the ethical and legal issues, the disoriented state of mind of euthanized patients, and religious beliefs that condemn euthanasia. A British physician, Lord Platt of Cambridge, said that a majority of doctors are hesitant to administer the actual euthanization.
Euthanasia advocates also set forth an argument based on distributive justice to support active voluntary euthanasia. The “rule of rescue” questions whether it is ethical to engage in expensive treatment of terminally ill patients to prolong their lives for a short period when medical funding is limited and gradually decreasing (Gabriel, 2011). This preferential treatment compromises the objectives of the medical profession and is morally unacceptable. The terminally ill patients who are already vulnerable should not be left to feel that they are a burden. They should be treated equally and should not be seen as depriving someone else of a prior right to those resources.
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.
So, in order to maintain the doctors' integrity the decision could allow the doctors to refuse treatment if doctors feel that they cannot conscientiously administer treatment because of the quality of life of the infant. Their views, therefore, deserve respect, but should not necessarily be conclusive. Where the child's future is utterly bleak and the doctors conclude that there is no benefit in continuing treatment, then the treatment can be withheld, even if the consequence of doing so is that the child will die.