We arrive into this world without a choice; and depart just the same. In the movie “Million Dollar Baby”, Maggie Fitzgerald’s fictional character is a prime example active euthanasia. Maggie’s decision to die is morally acceptable, but it is not ethically acceptable by philosopher James Rachels’ argument. Maggie’s decision was not ethically permissible because she violated Kant’s categorical imperative “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end” by asking her trainer, Frankie Dunn, to kill her. Rachels’ argument shows that Maggie’s euthanasia, her decision to die, was morally acceptable. However, Rachels’ never mentions ethics in his argument on the “Morality of Euthanasia”. We cannot conclude from Rachels’ argument that Maggie’s choice was ethically acceptable. James Rachels’ argument on euthanasia does not render Maggie’s Fitzgerald’s decision to die, ethically acceptable.
Whether Maggie Fitzgerald’s decision to die is ethically acceptable or not cannot be determined because James Rachels never mentions the ethicality
…show more content…
The reason so is that we have no way to figure from Rachels’ argument that Maggie’s decision was based in ethics. Rachels only discusses the morality of euthanasia in his argument. We can figure from his argument that Maggie’s decision was morally acceptable. However, we can conclude from other sources like Kant, Aristotle, and Nozick, that her decision was ethically acceptable. The way Maggie’s death was executed was not ethically acceptable, based on Kant’s principles. Rachels’ argument did not provide any argument or information on whether or not euthanasia or active euthanasia is ethically permissible. “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” (Mark
Timothy E. Quill in “Case of Individualized Decision Making”, described his patient Diane who was a vaginal cancer survivor, overcome alcoholism and depression. Dr. Quill diagnose her with Leukemia. He explained to Diane that the chemotherapy has only a 25% chance of survival and there were some complications involves in this process. Diane refused to take the treatment and decided to live the remaining of her life in a most enjoyable way possible, by avoiding all the pain of the treatment. Furthermore, when Diane heath condition deteriorate, Dr. Quill gave her some prescription that was primarily used to sleep assistance. He gave her information of the dose necessary to commit suicide. Diane decided to commit suicide and Dr. Quill diagnosis of death was Leukemia. Therefore, Diane did not do what she should be consider moral actions under the Kantian perspective because her maxim cannot become a universal law. Likewise, Dr. Quill did and did not did his best decision by
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
...ow point drives him to consider death as an alternative to suffering. This chapter helps to highlight some present day themes about the ethical issues of euthanasia such as the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Also whether or not a medical professional should assist in the process and under what circumstances. Discussion about euthanasia will probably continue in the future. This character brings some of the issues to light.
Euthanasia has been a long debated subject consisting of many opinions and believes. For this paper I will be providing my rationale on why I am for legalization of active voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill clients in Canada. Active voluntary euthanasia should be legalized because it respects the individual’s choice, it allows individuals to flourish in their passing, and reduces the individual from further suffering. These are all important components of bioethics, and are all good reasons why euthanasia is not a negative thing. Active voluntary euthanasia is “the active killing of a dying person” requested by the client themselves (Collier & Haliburton, 2011, p. 226). In the paper I will also be discussing about virtue ethics, the principle of autonomy, and care ethics.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
Daniel Challahan attempts to argue that Euthanasia is always seriously morally wrong in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok.” Callahan discusses several reasons depicting why he believes that Euthanasia is morally impermissible. John Lachs, however, does not see validity in several of Callahan’s points and responds to them in his article, “When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok.” Two points from Callahan’s article Lachs challenges are the fundamental moral wrong view and the subjectiveness of suffering.
In “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” Judith Thomson confronts the moral dilemma of how death comes about, whether one meets their demise through natural causes or by the hands of another (Shafer-Landau 544). If one does in fact lose their life through the action or inaction of another person, a second dilemma must also be considered. Does it matter whether a person was killed or simply allowed to die? The moral debate that arises from these issues is important because if forms opinions that ultimately sets the tone for what is socially acceptable behavior. Social issue such as legalization of euthanasia, abortions, and the distribution of medical resources all hinge on the “killing vs letting die problem”.
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
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
...an’s argument. I have shown that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is being performed and I have shown that James Rachel’s has great examples on explaining that there is no difference in passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. Thirdly I have shown that James Rachel’s premises follow from his conclusions not just from the conclusion itself. Also I have given one of his main weaknesses in his argument. Moving forward to Sullivan I have explained how his reasons make no sense according to James Rachel’s. I have also shown Sullivan’s main weaknesses and one of his strong points against Rachel’s. I also gave some of Rachel’s weaknesses but after all I think that I have proven that Rachel’s argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan for many reasons. Lastly, I have given my own ideas and theories of which argument I think is better.
Over the course of this paper, I will give a brief history, background, and address many of the arguments that are opposed to and for euthanasia. These arguments include causation, omission, legal issues, the physicians involved, the slippery slope that might potentially be created, autonomy rights, and Christianity.
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. The cessation of necessary treatment to prolong the life of the body by the patient or the immediate family (passive euthanasia) when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent, however, is permissible. His second premise is that “active euthanasia is a more efficient and humane means to ending the patient’s suffering than passive euthanasia.” To defend this claim, Rachel gives the case of a patient with incurable throat cancer. This patient is sure to die in a matter of days even if treatment is continued. The patient does not wish to live on in agony and asks the doctor to cease treatment. The doctor ag...
New York: New York University Press, 2012. Print. The. Kuhse, Helga. A. “Euthanasia.” A Companion to Ethics.
Rachels has a very strong opinion about the distinction of killing and letting die. He claims that there is little to no moral difference between actively killing and passively letting die (Hilliard, Exam 3 Med Ethics). Rachels states, "The idea
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.