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 …show more content…
Some say that with passive euthanasia the doctor does not actually know whether the patient will die and so stopping treatment is okay because it lets nature take its course. The patient is dying from a natural cause which is what makes passive euthanasia okay. Daniel Callahan, author of the article “Vital Distinctions, Mortal Questions: Debating Euthanasia and Health Care Costs”, argues that there is a distinction between passive and active euthanasia. He claims the difference between the two is what is causing the death. In terms of active euthanasia, the action of the doctor is what is physically causing the death of the patient, however, in the case of passive euthanasia allowing someone to die from a disease that is incurable is letting the disease act as the cause of death instead of the doctor. In this example, the cause of the death is different, therefore active and passive euthanasia are different. Thomas Fuchs, author of “The Notion of Killing” also agrees that there is a distinction between the two types of euthanasia. Fuchs states that the difference between killing and letting die is on the level of causality, in terms of the biological dimensions. Killing is described as an external impact on an organism, by another, causing the death of the organism. Letting die in described as the means in giving way to the ongoing process of self-disintegration. In active euthanasia, the doctor becomes the cause of death where in passive euthanasia the doctor allows the patient to succumb to their own death, and is not considered
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
There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive or voluntary euthanasia refers to withholding life saving treatments or medical technology to prolong life. For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need to be placed on life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia” Discovering).
Euthanasia is an assisted death to those with incurable diseases who wish to die peacefully instead of going through pain and suffering; on the other hand, euthanasia can be seen as legalized murder and used for the selfishness of family members. Since euthanasia has been legalized in the United States, debate has developed from the different views whether it is deliberate killing or an end to unbearable suffering. Also, there are two different kinds of euthanasia; passive euthanasia, which would be pulling the plug on life support as opposed to active euthanasia, which is an actual poisoning shot.
* Passive, indirect or negative euthanasia: ambiguous. Can be the decision by patient, parent or guardian and physician to withhold or withdraw extraordinary means of sustaining or prolonging life, such as deciding against high-risk surgery for a patient dying of cancer or kidney failure. When the intent is not to cause death but rather to reject extraordinary treatment, this results in the acceptance of death or continued life, whichever occurs, but it is not true euthanasia. The terms "passive," "indirect" or "negative euthanasia" should not be used since they play into the hands of euthanasia advocates by confusing legitimate actions with euthanasia, thereby desensitizing people to the fact that euthanasia is killing. More importantly, passive euthanasia is sometimes defined by others as the withholding of lifesaving treatment with the intention and result of causing the patient's death. This is the equivalent to active, direct euthanasia.
There are two main classifications of euthanasia: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is conducted with the consent of the patient while involuntary euthanasia is conducted without consent from the patient themselves, but with the consent from another person. With this, there are two procedural classifications of euthanasia which include passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia happens when life-sustaining treatments are withheld – the doctor doesn’t “know” that the patient
Euthanasia is put into two categories: Passive and Active. In Passive Euthanasia, doctors will i...
There are two different classifications of euthanasia. There is voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is simply euthanasia conducted with consent, whereas involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia conducted without consent. This is a fairly straightforward point, right? Well, it gets more complex. There are also two different procedural classifications of euthanasia. They are active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when lethal substances or measures are taken to end a patient’s life. The other procedural classification, passive euthanasia, is the withholding of life-sustaining treatments. Some people feel as if the definition of passive euthanasia is debatable.
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.
Before defining and discussing the three major categories of euthanasia, it is important to understand the meaning of their subtypes known as active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is performing a direct action to take someone’s life, such as administering a lethal drug to a patient. Passive euthanasia is allowing someone to die by not performing some life-sustaining action or ending life-sustaining treatment (Pojman). Examples of passive euthanasia would be removing a patient’s respirator or withholding nutrients and fluids. Active euthanasia is easily the more controversial of the two.
Euthanasia is the act of killing a patient who is undergoing a very serious painful disease that can’t be cured. The killing process involved does not involve any pain. There are different classification of euthanasia; involuntary and voluntary, non-voluntary, passive and active euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to the painless killing of a patient using poison. It is done by administering any poisonous injection to the hopeless patient (Wennberg 175).
In active euthanasia a person deliberately causes the patient to die where as in passive euthanasia they don’t really take the patient’s life they just let them die.
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.