Active Euthanasia And Passive Euthanasia Essay

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.

Kuhse actively discusses the difference between active and passive death, and how some people have thought of death to be evil. She refutes Nesbitt’s assumption that death is always evil by correlating his assumption to clinical practice. In a clinical setting, this view has already been rejected by patients and doctors because not always do people believe life is always good and will. Kuhse brings about the topic of passive euthanasia when discussing the quality of life of terminally ill patients. Kuhse states, “Terminally or incurably ill patients standardly refuse life-sustaining treatment, and doctors allow these patients to die, for the patients’ good (Kuhse 299). This means that the patients are making the decision that they would rather

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

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.

James Rachel believes that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia. He gives the example of either drowning a baby or letting a baby drown. Both ends with the baby dying, and in both cases, the intention was to kill the child (pg. 596). He also argues that active euthanasia has a preference to passive euthanasia because it can hasten one's death and prevent them from suffering to death (pg. 594). Rachel also believes that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is unwise and that the distinction should be used by physicians because they have to by law (pg. 594).

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.

Most moral codes state that killing another human being is morally wrong. I would agree that to kill another human being in the heat of anger, for material gain or in the event of committing a crime would be morally wrong. But I feel that our moral codes are lacking in certain areas and do not take into account some situations where killing another human being would be morally acceptable. This type of killing would be to end the person’s suffering only. These cases the killing would be called active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia “taking a direct action to kill someone, to carry out a “mercy killing”. (Vaughn, 2010) “Passive Euthanasia is

Active euthanasia is also known as “assistant suicide.” Euthanasia is usually used for people suffering from terrible pain and incurable disease. Some people relate euthanasia to suicide. However, euthanasia is very different than suicide and taking someone off their life support. I believe active euthanasia is better than passive euthanasia and will demonstrate my opinions. The different between active euthanasia from passive euthanasia is let the patients less suffering, less painful.

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

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

When a person commits an act of euthanasia, he/she brings about the death of another person because he/she believes that the latter’s present existence is so bad that he/she would be better off dead. The word euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means “good” and thanatos means “death”. The meaning of euthanasia is “the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies” (Religious Tolerance). However, euthanasia has many different meanings, which tends to create confusion. It is important to differentiate between the various terms used in discussing euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia refers to removing some form of life support which allows nature to take its course. Forms of life