Active And Passive Euthanasia Essay

be fed orally because of blistering in the mouth and throat. Any movement of the

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.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

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

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.

Voluntary Active Euthanasia is a controversial subject, Does one have the right to end their own life? According to Peter Singer in “Voluntary Euthanasia: A utilitarian Perspective,” Voluntary Active Euthanasia is morally permissible under certain circumstances. If and only if certain requirements are met by certain parties can the process of voluntary active euthanasia be completed.

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 his paper, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels argues that both active and passive are morally permissible and that the American Medical Association policy that supports the conventional doctrine is unsound. Rachels starts by indicating that the conventional doctrine is the notion that passive euthanasia is accepted in certain situations, while active euthanasia is forbidden in all situations. Rachels uses four arguments to demonstrate his opinion: active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia (Rachels 1); the decisions lead by the conventional doctrine is based on irrelevant grounds (Rachels 1); the difference between killing and letting die as no moral importance (Rachels 1); and the invalidity of the most common arguments that support the

This essay will aim to focus on the arguments that author, James Rachel’s presents in his article, Active and Passive Euthanasia,” In his article Rachel’s argues that both passive and active euthanasia are morally permissible and the doctors that is supported by the American Medical Association(AMA) is believed to be unsound. In this paper I will offer a thorough analysis of Rachel’s essay then so offer a critique in opposition of his arguments. In conclusion I will refute these oppositions claims by defending Rachel’s argument, and showing why I believe his claims that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, to be effective.

In his article published in 1975, James Rachels seeks to pose an unsound difference between passive and active euthanasia, and explains a strong case as to how these two are essentially the same thing when it comes to committing murder. One can argue both cases: according to the American Medical Association “The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another- mercy killing- Is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association” to which Rachels makes several strong arguments against this principle throughout his article. First, he explains to cases that seem very similar with one exception each: The first case is about Smith, who is seeking personal

I would like to begin by defining the issue of the article by Patrick Nowell-Smith. The issue of his article is legalizing euthanasia and giving people a right to decide when and how to die.

James Rachels disputes that there is no ethically significance between killing and letting die, in which there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia. In his view, active euthanasia happens to be compassionate towards the individual than passive euthanasia. It is essential to understand the difference between the two in which one idea

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.

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 American Medical Association states that passive euthanasia (letting die) is morally permissible. However, active euthanasia (assisting patients die) is never morally permissible because it’s like killing the patient instead of letting the patient die naturally. Active euthanasia, is taking a direct action to kill a patient and on the other hand, passive euthanasia, is withholding treatments to let the patient die (letting die). Rachels (1975) disagrees with the American Medical Association because he supports active euthanasia contrary to the position of this body. According to Rachels, active euthanasia reduces the pain of the patients who would otherwise die even without the injection. In other words, there are no significant differences between letting a person die and killing a person, who will still perish in the end. Rachels refutes the claim of the American Medical Association that does not support intentional termination of the life of the patient or what is referred to as mercy killing. In her view, doctors only uphold their legal mandate by not engaging in the mercy killing and ignoring their moral duty to ensure the patient die without pain. The doctors only seek to avoid legal responsibility by letting the patient die instead of killing the patient. Alternatively, passive euthanasia allows the patient to die naturally while the active one requires the doctor to take action to terminate the life of the patient. As such, by allowing the patient to die, the