Active And Passive Euthanasia Analysis

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.

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia” Rachels demonstrates the similarities between passive and active euthanasia. He claims that if one is permissible, than the other must also be accessible to a patient who prefers that particular fate. Rachels spends the majority of the article arguing against the recommendations of the AMA. The AMA proposes that active euthanasia contradicts what the medical profession stands for. The AMA thinks that ending a person’s life is ethically wrong, yet believes that a competent patient has a right to choose passive euthanasia, meaning to refuse treatment in this case. Rachels makes four claims arguing against that AMA statement.

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

…killing can lead to fear and insecurity in those who learn of the risk to their own lives, is transformed into a reason in favor of permitting killing, when people are killed only on their request. For then killing poses no threat.#

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

In Rachel’s “Active and Passive Euthanasia” he explores how the perception of the difference between active and passive euthanasia has no ethical weight. The American Medical Association, quoted by Rachels in his argument, justifies passive euthanasia via ‘comfort care’ or the cease of care as something that could be deemed as ethically acceptable, medically speaking as the physician is not actively doing anything to cause harm to one whose care they are presiding over. Furthermore the AMA is quoted as being a strong opponent of the practice of active euthanasia due to the physician purposefully aiding the patient in euthanasia violating the Hippocratic oath all physicians must take. Rachel’s argues that ‘allowing’ someone to die puts the bystander

James Rachel, a philosophy professor at the university of Alabama, wrote a paper called "Active and Passive Euthanasia" where he argues against the distinction between killing in letting die. He says that the distinction is made on morally irrelevant grounds. He says that the distinction between passive and active euthanasia should not be based on whether or not wanted more morally permissible then the other. To prove his point Rachel uses three dif-ferent examples, which included different circumstance where euthanasia is involved. He looks at each example and argues why active euthanasia would be the same or even better then passive euthanasia in the situation.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has an oppressive restriction for the “termination” of patient’s lives, regardless of their condition or wishes. The World Medical Association (WMA) holds the same restriction. Thus, euthanasia is considered contrary to the “right to life principle” that is the basis for many of the values in medical ethics. Thus, the AVE, NVAE, and PAD cases brought to courts between 1940 and 2007 did not sway these beliefs held by the AMA and WMA . A case to illustrate this is Cruzan vs. Missouri Department of Health. This 1990 case dealt with the consented refusal of medical treatment in which the patient is informed that the decision will result in death . The practices AVE, NVAE, and PAD are hidden from the government's eyes and even, ruled with a hand of sympathy when brought to court. Since our government is already lenient in ruling these cases, legalizing the acts in question would eliminate qualm in society. Many doctors have approved of AVE, NVAE, and PAD while it is unlawful. For example, in January 1970, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported a survey of Seattle doctors relaying that about 130 of the surveyed 418 physicians voted in favor

One criteria of death is the whole-brain criterion. This basically states that death is when you do not have any functioning of the brain. The rationale behind this criteria is that cardio-pulmonary activity is a sign of brain functioning. This means since your brain is connected with all the other organs of your body, if the brain shuts down it will shut down everything else as well. For example, if your brain stops working then the activity of your heart will cease. This also explains the second rationale of this criteria, in which the brain originates functioning of all other organs. Active euthanasia is basically killing someone with good intention. For example, a doctor giving a patient a lethal dose of medicine. Passive euthanasia is letting

James Rachels, a well-known philosopher and author of “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” also believed that there are no relevant differences in terms of the morality behind active and passive euthanasia. Rachels objected to this common argument by claiming, “If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons.” The American Medical Association (AMA) also has an opinion on the matter with a policy claiming that active euthanasia is “contrary to that for which the medical profession stands.” In “Active and Passive

Argument for Rachel’s Thesis: Active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. Intentions and actions are two separate ideas which cannot be compared. He also explains how inaction is still an action because there is a consequence. When performing euthanasia, no matter the intentions, someone still dies. There is no moral distinction between letting die and killing someone because the action’s result is the same. If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa.

Imagine that you are terminally ill in the hospital suffering an extreme pain like no other with a 99.9% of passing away but the only thing that is barely keeping you alive is your medication or machine hooked up to you. No matter what you are going to die. This conversation has been brought up many numerous times to the American Medical Association Statement and to the American public whether or not active Euthanasia is permissible or not. American Medical Association argues that assisted suicide is immorally wrong because it is intentionally killing somebody by someone else’s actions. “The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases,

I never have thought about euthanasia in such depth until this assignment. It isn’t something completely new to me because I have heard about it, it happens everywhere, even if you or I don’t see it. But, I never gathered my thoughts about such a serious topic. Reading such opinions from these authors made me find out more about this topic but I cannot say I have came to a clear and set decision or opinion about euthanasia. As James Rachels states, “I can understand why some people are opposed to all euthanasia, and insist that such infants must be allowed to live. [But] I think I can also understand why other people favor destroying these babies quickly and painlessly” (Rachels 155).

Patrick D. Hopkins in this article draws an attention about the distinction between active and passive euthanasia to be highly criticized and problematic. The author explains that to be find a relevant difference between the two types of euthanasias it is important to reveal the concept of “natural” death and intervention. In medical terms, interventions are used to make an ontological difference between actions and other things. In active euthanasia, there is a direct cause of death, whereas, in other type, one has to undergo through physiological process to track its natural path. Hopkins explains the Brody’ analysis that if respirators are interventions and its removal does not considered as killing. It would only results into natural course

•Some people believe that because of their religion and traditions, assisted suicide is not right and not acceptable. PAD is morally wrong because it is viewed as diminishing the sanctity of life. Another argument is that some patients might want to die through physician assisted death because they want to ease the financial burden of family members and not their own pain.