Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

A. Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision.

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.

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.

As we are not meant to live forever when it gets to a point where our lives become difficult to live due to old age or severe medical conditions, and incurable illnesses then people have a right to end their lives as they see fit. It is morally wrong to keep someone alive simply because other people believe it would be wrong to help them through active euthanasia. Believing that patients can refuse medical treatment and wait to die naturally is wrong as well as each individual has different reason for wanting to end their life. Fearing death only prolongs life a little longer but death comes to all and the moment we realize that death is a natural part of life and some just want to fasten the inevitable instead of prolonging life as some in

Imagine this. You were just in a car accident. You are slowly flashing in and out on your way to the hospital. You continue to see lights flashing in your eyes, and you cannot feel anything. You can see rags soaked in someone’s blood coming off you. It is almost impossible to breathe almost as if you are choking. A couple more seconds and you close your eyes, and they do not open again for a long time. When you finally resurface you find yourself in a hospital bed. Without thinking you try to sit up and are instantly hit with pain. You stop and look around. You see that one leg is gone the other leg is bandaged along with both of your arms. You are hooked up to multiple machines for breathing and eating. After a couple of minutes the doctor

Years before euthanasia could be compared to someone having a good death, a very easy way out to die. Or if someone had a hugely traumatic event such as a car crash, they could take this route as painfully as possible. However, now the term euthanasia fits into the category of something head on causing one’s death if they’re sick or dying. This “something” “[consists of] such actions as the taking of lethal amounts of medication, the administration of poisonous gases, pills or intravenous solutions, or overt killing acts such as suffo-euthanasia” (Eileen Flynn, Issues In Medical Ethics). Euthanasia is legal in the entire country of the Netherlands currently, but yet to be in the United Startes. Euthanasia is the most reputable choice when done right, euthanasia is ethical under conditioned circumstances, this would not lead to involuntary killing plus abuses in the future, and Americans can learn from a tragic past where this has gone wrong.

In this paper, I will discuss euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and whether there are circumstances under which the two are ever ethically permissible. I will also be examining active and passive euthanasia and how philosophers view both differently. I will cite the text “Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues”, philosophers like James Rachel, and cases such as Dax Cowart and Brittany Maynard. Using these, I will develop an argument for why active voluntary euthanasia is ethically permissible.

In 1Corinthians 15:54 and 2Co 5:1 it says that death has been absorbed by the victory. This is making reference to the dignity of the dying person. The Church, by defending the sacred character of life in the moribund, does not obey any form of ending physical life. On the contrary, we researchers understand that the Church is teaching to respect the true dignity of a person, who is a creature of God, and is helping to accept serenely the death when the physical forces can no longer be sustained. In a Research about euthanasia described by doctors and pastors, Risto (2013), a Pastor was interviewed on how he viewed euthanasia, his response was, “I accept active euthanasia … Nobody owns us, and because we can always commit suicide we should, in my opinion, also have the opportunity to die through euthanasia.” This is an example that shows that not all people who believe in God, believe in forbidding someone in pain to die in peace. In the same research (Risto, 2013), a pediatrician said that if the patient is

78% of 3,251 requests for euthanasia were from patients with cancer in the year 2012. It depends in what countries you are in some consider euthanasia the same as assisted suicide, but others would say differently. It also depends on the case and what happened in it. Euthanasia is known of a painless way of ending someone’s life. Euthanasia case is growing more and more. Euthanasia is wrong it isn’t a natural death and individual still have time to live, why cut their life short.

The word Euthanasia means “Good Death” and is also the name of one of the greatest controversities alongside abortion. Over the years people have been swayed between the ideas of what Euthanasia entails, yet in the end we are all going to die. When arguing for Euthanasia people would bring up such points as to the benefits of saving a loved one from future suffering or allowing the patient to decide how they die on their own. The opposing argument would argue that once Euthanasia is wrong because not only does it go against moral and ethical codes, but once it is legalized what is to stop people who want to commit suicide to do so. The main arguments for Euthanasia consist of whether it should be legalized, the morality questions, and the ethicality of it all. The common ground between both authors is to give the patient as least suffering as possible while taking care of them in a way they consider is best.

The second form of euthanasia, which is the active or positive type, cannot be defended from the viewpoints of either ethics or religious principles as it ultimately emerges as an act of murder, or suicide. As regards its definition, it is described as “an act of commission; death is induced either by direct action to terminate life, or by indirect action such as in giving drugs in amounts that will clearly hasten death (Russell 19). That is, death is made to occur giving rise to the concern that it is an act of murder, if the doctor is involved, or an act of suicide, if only the patient himself is involved. Interestingly, when we consider the ethical principles involved in the two forms of euthanasia defined, we find that the first can be defended as ethical despite the fact that it can occur without the wishes or the involvement of the patient, while the second can’t be defended as such although it occurs with the direct consent, and even cooperation of the patient (Stauch 2). In other words, we may understand and sympathize with the circumstances which led a person to request euthanasia and go through it, but we can’t defend it from the perspective of moral and religious arguments. This is due to the fact that it forces death to

Euthanasia encompasses various topics from active euthanasia (introducing something to cause death, in most cases this is a lethal injection of barbiturates), to passive euthanasia which is withholding treatment or support measures such as removing feeding tubes or not performing a lifesaving surgery at the wishes or consent of the patients (voluntary) or the guardian (involuntary) and physician assisted suicide where a doctor prescribes the medicine and the patient voluntarily on their own take it to cause death. To better understand the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide, John E. Ferguson, author of the book "The Right to Die" defines them separately. Euthanasia is, "the act or practice of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition, especially a painful one, for reasons of mercy" (Ferguson 20) whereas assisted suicide is defined in Ferguson's book as, "the intentional act of providing a person with the medical means or medical knowledge to kill themselves" (Ferguson 21). This paper will explore the pros and cons of The right to die movement as well as the ethical and human rights controversy surrounding the subject as it pertains to patients in comas like The Terri Schiavo’s Case and physician-assisted suicide.

One of the most controversial matters in today’s society is whether or not a terminally ill patient who is in insufferable pain should have the right to choose life or death. As harsh as that sounds, death is imminent for us all. When a dying person's quality of life is so poor, they should have the legal right to choose to die peacefully and with dignity. According to Gerrit Kimsma, an Associate Professor in Medical Philosophy, “Assisting death in so way precludes giving the best palliative care possible but rather integrates compassionate care and respect for the patient’s autonomy and ultimately makes death with dignity a real option” (Kimsma n.pag.). Prolonging the inevitable causes unnecessary false hope and extensive emotional suffering for both the patient and their loved ones. Euthanasia offers a patient the right to openly and honestly choose their fate. This removes the families constant wonder of whether or not they made the “right” medical decision on behalf of their loved one. A frequent misconception with Euthanasia is that it is simply just suicide but according to Penney Lewis with BBC News, “Euthanasia is an intervention undertaken with the intention of ending a life to relieve suffering, for example a lethal injection administered by a doctor and assisted suicide is any act that intentionally helps another person kill themselves” (Lewis n.pag.). In no way are Euthanasia and assisted suicide performed for the same reasons. They may both

Euthanasia legalization has been a controversial topic for years; studies have shown that arguments regarding the euthanasia debate are often depending on the process used to take the life of the patient. There are a lot of thoughts surrounding the issue of euthanasia and whether or not it should be legal. According to the Encyclopedia of American Law, euthanasia is categorized as a class of criminal homicide (Debate.org, par. 3). However, not all homicides are considered illegal. In today’s society, killing is seen as excusable when used as a criminal penalty, but inexcusable when carried out for any other reason. In most places, non-voluntary euthanasia is considered illegal and involuntary euthanasia is considered a criminal homicide.