Active And Passive Euthanasia Summary

Hutchinson proposed that voluntary ¬euthanasia could grow to the deaths of more than 1000 terminally ill patients a year before 2030. The Andrews government had the country's first assisted death in September 2017. The self-¬administered death is open to terminally ill patients aged over 18. The suffering must be with an ¬incurable disease with a life ¬expectancy of less than 12 months. I will use this to demonstrate the growing number of physician assisted suicides.

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.

Rachels’s third point in the argument states that there is not a fine line between passive and active euthanasia. He sets up two scenarios involving two cousins. In the first scenario, Smith plans to drown his cousin in order to inherit money. The second scenario involves a person by the name of Jones. Jones plans on drowning his cousin for money, but the cousin falls, hits their head and drowns without Jones’ help. Jones witnessed the entire incident and could have stopped it, instead he allowed the tragedy to happen. Rachels concludes that killing and allowing to die, or active and passive euthanasia, are equal. They have the same intention. Rachels sums up his last argument by pointing out the major flaw of the AMA’s position on euthanasia. Even if taking away treatment seems helpful to the patient, the end result is still death. The same occurs for active euthanasia. Rachels concludes that passive euthanasia is just as moral as active euthanasia. Therefore, active euthanasia must be allowed if passive is also allowed.

The idea of non-voluntary active euthanasia is not such a disaster, as euthanasia itself. The problem that comes into consideration is when and why it should be used. When euthanasia is non-voluntary and active, such as on a patient with dementia, the ethical decision comes into play if there are episodes of clarity and the patient has or has not mentioned what they want to do at the end of life situations. Principles of deontology suggest duty and obligation. A medical professional in such situations have an obligation to fulfill the patient 's wishes. The nature of their obligation does not sway based on what they personally think. Patients with dementia have some moments of clarity, but because their brains are still deteriorating, non-

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels argues that both degrees of euthanasia are morally permissible and the American Medical Association (AMA) policy that supports the conventional doctrine is not sound. Rachels establishes that the conventional doctrine is the belief that, in some cases, passive euthanasia is morally permitted, while active euthanasia, under all circumstances, is

Killing is a form of active euthanasia and letting the patient die is a form of passive euthanasia. Rachel, as a virtue theorist author uses 2 examples of killing and letting die. She also questions why let die babies with impairments such Spina Bifida or Down syndrome withholding treatments instead of kill them. Also, in the article by Rachel, she uses an example of a man that wanted the fortune of his family, but there is a boy who is the first to get it if something happened to the person actually in charge of the fortune. So he intentionally kills the boy so he can have the money. However, the same author uses the same case but this time, she changed to letting the boy die. When the boy is taking his shower, he enters, but the boy falls and hits his head causing him to drown, but the man just stands and watches the boy die. Moreover, both of them are forms of death. With letting die you foreseen the outcome that is death you are intending relieve their pain. With killing you are intending the death. Furthermore what is crueler between

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.

Some may argue that there is a moral difference because of the value of the individual’s life. Jonathan Glover explains the notion of an individual’s life being valuable on what he calls “side-effects”. Glover rationalizes the idea of killing an individual not always permissible based on how the killing will effect others and not only the patient. Glover gives an example of how when a man dies, his wife, children, family, and friends become very sad and that translates into a less happy atmosphere (Glover, p.266). Thus, Glover feels that by letting an individual die rather than killing him or her it causes less of a strain on the family to feel guilty and an atmosphere of

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.

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.

His first point is cases of misdiagnosis or mistaken prognosis, he explains that if a person believes they are dying of a disease they may believe there is not hope to recovery which could result in voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia is when euthanasia is done at the patient’s specific request, for example again if ninety-seven year old woman was diagnosed with cancer she may choose to not undergo dialysis, she may instead opt for euthanasia. J Gay-Williams next point for self-interest is cases when a patient who was expected to die by friends, family, and physicians unexpectedly survives, the patient may turn to euthanasia to guarantee their already presumed expectations. The last point Gay-Williams discusses is when patients know that they have the option to end their lives at any time they may choose to give up when there is still a possible chance for survival. Overall, Gay-Williams does not seem to believe that euthanasia is ever truly in a person’s self-interest, because the choice of euthanasia in the back of a person’s mind may result in them giving up survival.

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.

There are two types of Euthanasia. Active Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia. Active Euthanasia is defined as ' causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that person.' There are many methods that fit under this category. The most common ways are the taking of drugs and injections. Drugs are prescribed by a doctor that are intended to kill the patient. But these drugs are not guaranteed to work. Research on Euthanasia in the Netherlands show that the medication failed to work in 16% of the patients and a further 7% of the patients had side effects when taking the drugs, such as vomiting and gasping. Injections are another common way to be Euthanized, this involves two injections, the first to put the

Euthanasia debate opposes two sides in which one side argues that letting someone suffer is not ethical and the other side defend that to help someone to die is not ethical based on the morality that no one should kill or help someone to die (fundamental right that everyone is allowed to live), they judge that euthanasia should compromise the criminal code. For my own morality, I am for the euthanasia possibility for the people in need to die for the reason of the person’s well-being.

This is why Euthanasia is important and summarizing the research that I found on Euthanasia. Euthanasia is important because there is a lot of arguments about Euthanasia. Some people support it and some people do not support Euthanasia (Euthanasia and assisted suicide- Arguments). Euthanasia allows people to be free from physical pain. It is the hastening of death of a patient to prevent further sufferings (Euthanasia Revisited). The religious argument states God chooses when human life ends. Euthanasia also causes mental suffering because they are in physical pain or they are experiencing with terminal illness. It is a debatable issue. There are many different opinions on Euthanasia.