Active And Passive Euthanasia Paper

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

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.

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.

In United States, Euthanasia is a highly controversial subject among politicians, legislators and society members. Just the mention of this issue polarizes different groups on opposing ends as some either support it and others want to keep it illegal and unlawful(Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, &Zwahlen, 2013). The main ideology that is discussed in the situation is whether an individual has a right on his own life in cases of terminal illness where there is no way of recovering according to medical professionals. The argument that is for the provision of assisted-death for terminally ill can be understood by other names of Euthanasia which are- mercy-killing and dignity-death. These names are given to the practice of physical assisted-death as it allows the terminally ill patients to avoid the extreme pain, constant awareness of certain death and humiliating medical conditions that are part of some terminal illnesses. In this report, the present state of Euthanasia has been evaluated in context of United States. The goal is to look for the existing political and legislative environment for and against Euthanasia and identify an appropriate solution.

With this paper I plan to address the topic of euthanasia. I will cover the philosophy behind why it is not a regular practice, and differentiate between multiple forms. After introducing the issue, itself I will speak briefly on the legality of the issue. This should result in the principles of myself, Peter Singer, Don Marquis, and Michael Tooley all being brought together in this discussion. Ultimately, I will lead this discussion into the direction of why I have found euthanasia to be a morally permissible action.

In his article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” James Nichols criticizes the American Medical Association for forbidding “active” euthanasia, in which a patient is killed quickly and painlessly by lethal injection, while allowing “passive” euthanasia, in which a patient dies due to withheld treatment. He makes three objections to the American Medical Association policy; 1) “passive” euthanasia can result in needless, extended suffering, 2) AMA moral considerations are irrelevant and 3) distinctions between killing and letting die vary from case to case. Thus, based on Nichols’ objections, he believes that the American Medical Association is morally wrong for allowing “passive” (and denouncing “active”) euthanasia within its code of medical ethics.

Euthanasia or ‘assisted suicide’ is the action of ending life to relieve incurable or extreme suffering and falls into three main categories; voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on someone who is able to, but has not, given consent, this occurs in vary rare situations, and we therefore will concentrate on the other two main forms of euthanasia, voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary Euthanasia is consented by the patient; non-voluntary is not consented by the patient but by someone else, often by family or loved ones, when the patient is not able to give consent (i.e. Coma). The procedural classifications of euthanasia also fall into two categories, ‘Passive Euthanasia’ is the

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.

Different situations call for different measures. The word euthanasia is associated with ending someone’s life whether it be voluntary or no-voluntary. Euthanasia is categized by two aspects the 1st aspect of euthanasia is considered passive, and the 2nd aspect of euthanasia is categized as active euthanasia. This propose of this paper is to get a basic understanding of euthanasia and the different variations of definitions, and to explore whether active euthanasia should be legal or illegal in the United States.

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

Within the article, “Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized”, Doyal and Doyal argue that active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legal for various reasons. Doyal and Doyal question the law and brings attention to the

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

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

When considering whether the piece of legislation titled “The Death with Dignity Act” is morally and philosophically justifiable, the moral and philosophic viability of what is referred to as active voluntary euthanasia must first be evaluated. Because active voluntary euthanasia seeks to reduce the amount of suffering of the patients as well as offer individuals greater control over their life it can be justified, and the “Death with Dignity Act” outlines a responsible method for enacting active voluntary euthanasia.