A Patient's Right To Die

Active and passive euthanasia has been a controversial topic for many decades. Medicine has become so advanced, even the most ill patients can be kept alive by artificial means. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action taken to end a person’s life, such as lethal dose of medication (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2014). Passive euthanasia is allowing a person to die by not intervening or stopping a treatment that is keeping them alive (Garrard, 2014). There are three main arguments within this issue; Firstly, in the healthcare setting, it is morally accepted to allow a patient to die but purposely killing a patient is not (Garrard, 2014). Secondly, some people believe there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia.

Many people believe that health care providers should do everything in their power to keep the patient alive. Yet, a growing population is beginning to side with the argument that in certain situations a person should be allowed death with dignity. From a terminally ill patient’s standpoint, being able to go on their own terms rather than undergoing extensive treatment that often leads to extensive suffering in their final weeks and months, brings them peace. When surveyed, the number one priority of elders is being able to maintain their independence (Matthews, 2013). This generation, does not want to become a burden for their families. Physician assisted suicide allows the patient to end their life when they decide they do not have a tolerable quality of life

Morality, in its basic sense, can easily be interpreted as a view or a response that is influenced by a culture. Given its conditioned thoughts, a single person may not take a stance where they have the ultimate discretion of what deems the distinction of moral things, and those that are not. Instead of attempting to grasp this larger picture, a second thought to ponder is whether or not there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia. Breaking this argument down a bit more, our ultimate goal is to prove that the acts of killing and letting die are indistinguishable. Philosophers such as Phillipa Foot, believes that there is a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die, however the case she presents is not as easy to influence as is James Rachels’ argument in “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” In opposition to Foot, Rachels creates the argument that there is not a morally relevant distinction between the acts of killing and letting die. Although Rachels presents a more influential case, he also suggest that we should be inclined to change the laws and medical policy around euthanasia. Given this implied suggestion, we must ignore his suggestion, because it is not necessarily inclusive to his conclusion.

Having read and analyzed this article in my opinion Mr. James Rachels successfully argues that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable. First of all and to better understand the position of the author we need to understand the principal concepts involved in this article. We need to define euthanasia and classify the different types of euthanasia. Euthanasia is considered as a good death, it is the act or omission that accelerates the death of a patient sick with no cure, with or without their approval (as in the case of people in a coma), with the intention of stopping suffering and pain. Euthanasia is associated with the end of life to stop or avoid suffering.

Death and dying has changed drastically in the past hundred years. In the past, most deaths occurred without warning mostly due to infectious diseases. Back then, medicine could do little to cure illness or extend life (NCBI, 1997). Most deaths occurred in the home surrounded by family. Today, death usually happens to older people following a long-term illness. The dying patient is usually in a hospital or heath care institution of some kind (Carr, 2003). The dying process is now more controlled by the ill patient and their family (Carr, 2003). “The Patient Self Determination Act, passed by Congress in 1990, requires all government-funded health providers to give patients the opportunity to formally articulate their end of life treatment

In James Rachel’s article Active and Passive Euthanasia, James provides the argument that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia because in the end, either through inaction or action, it both results in death and there are no moral differences in ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. Rachel provides several different arguments to support his case including a patient dying of terminal cancer, and two uncles and the death of their nephews.

The Institute of Medicine defines a good death as one that allows patients, families and caregivers to avoid distress and suffering at a difficult time (Con & NET, 2007). What is considered a rational step in preparation for end of life in Western biomedicine, is seen as hindering to various ethnic minority groups, who are unable to exercise their beliefs (Frearson, Henderson, Raval, Daniels, Burke, & Koffman, 2013). Western medicine has expanded and taken predominance over medical practices worldwide. One of the key constituents of medical practice in Western societies, is the importance of ensuring patient autonomy. The implementation of the “Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA)” in 1991, was a strategy employed to ensure that individuals were able to exercise their autonomy in making decisions regarding medical treatments (Doorenbos & Nies, 2003). The PSDA was instilled as a strategy to encourage healthcare professionals in educating their patients about the importance of advance directives (Doorenbos & Nies, 2003). The four main values carried by the PSDA revolve around the concepts of “autonomy over end of life care, informed decision making, truth telling, and control of dying process” (Giger et al., 2006, p.4). However, since its implementation, national statistics for completed advance directives amongst

Our society finds it difficult to talk about dying and euphemisms are the norm. It is typical for both doctors and patients to be hesitant to initiate a discussion on dying. Focus instead is often more often placed on interventions and actions for managing symptoms. This avoidance can leave patients and their families unprepared for the inevitable death. (Schapira, 2010) It also often results in requests for therapies which may be excessive, costly and even painful in the hopes for a cure. One study demonstrates that when patients are aware that they are terminally ill, the majority are able to reach a state of peacefulness and also exhibit lower levels of distress. (Ray, Block, Friedlander, Zhang, Maciejewski & Prigerson, 2006) It is also important that family members are willing to discuss end-of-life options with their loved ones. According to elderly patients, they are most often the ones who initiate these conversations with their

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

In cases of involuntary euthanasia, the patient is able to provide informed consent, but does not do so. For example, a young man is in agony after being severely injured in a car accident. He begs the doctor to do anything to save him. Knowing that the young man’s pain is only going to get worse and that he will die in a matter of hours, the doctor gives the young man a lethal dose of medication in order to spare him additional pain and end his life. Despite the fact that someone’s motive for euthanizing another person against their will could seem moral, I believe the practice of involuntary euthanasia is highly immoral and equivalent to murder. Not surprisingly, involuntary euthanasia is almost universally condemned in civilized society.

Death has always been a controversial topic throughout the world. There are many theories as to where we go and what the meaning of life truly is. How one dies is important in today’s society, especially when it comes to the idea of suicide. Active euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering. It is illegal in some places, like France, but allowing patients to die is authorized by law in other places under certain conditions. Doug McManaman constructed an argument, “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” to defend his view that active euthanasia is never morally

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

The term euthanasia is used differently by most people. Personally, I use it to include all forms of assisted suicide. The question for most people is whether euthanasia can be morally justified. Many people consider this practice to be against all ethics. This is despite whether compassion was the motive or otherwise. There are many dynamics that are involved when a person requires it to alleviate extreme pain or a condition that is considered to be torture towards the person experiencing it. There is need for the act of assisted suicide to be morally justifiable to make it ethical. However, the major question is to whom the act is meant to justify morality to. Every case that requires euthanasia should be considered differently with its own tenets. The use of euthanasia is morally justifiable and is therefore ethically acceptable since the use requires the opinion of medical practitioners.

Today we are face with death in a different setting then our ancestors, instead of dying at a younger age and dying in our home with our families, people are now dying at a hospital or in a medical setting. We are living longer because of the advances in medicine, this is causing us to develop diseases that our ancestors never had to face. Our ancestors did not live long enough to develop some of the diseases we face today. As Jones (2011) provides, “we don’t just die of different diseases then our ancestors, we also die in different circumstances” (p. 302). The changes in circumstances have caused us to reevaluate what is believed to be ethical when faced with dying. There are many medical options a terminal ill or elderly patient that is dying can choose from, however there is great debate whether some of these options are ethical.

Some believe that euthanasia should be ethically viewed similarly to suicide because of the idea of choosing to end one’s own life, which is considered unethical. However, some oppose this belief, and believe