Active Euthanasia Research Paper

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels argues that, morally, active and passive euthanasia are the same. Rachels’ strongest argument for this claim is that killing is not worse then letting one die. Since active euthanasia is killing and passive euthanasia is letting one die, morally active and passive euthanasia are the same (Rachels, 1997). I intend to argue that this argument fails because factors such as intent and cause of death play a role in passive and active euthanasia and when these factors are present it can be said that active and passive euthanasia are not the same and in fact active euthanasia is morally worse then passive euthanasia.

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.

Morgan Fille PHI2604 9/30/2016 Active and Passive Euthanasia by James Rachels Euthanasia. When people think of this word they think of being out to rest, being put out of misery, and death. And that's fine, because tat is what euthanasia is. but, when we talk about euthanasia with humans the definition turns into immoral, murder, and doctors are killers. What these nay-sayers don't see is that this procedure helps many terminally ill people.

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

Euthanasia, as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is considered to be, “the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering” (2015).Within this can be found different methods of euthanasia including passive or indirect euthanasia which requires withholding of basic life-saving measures such as oxygen, nutrition, hydration, or resuscitation. Another form is direct euthanasia which can be caused by administered drugs, injections, or suffocation. In its entirety, euthanasia has been debated as an ethical issue through its many forms and reasoning (Methods of euthanasia, 2011).

Many people would argue that it’s okay to end your life or someone else’s life, if they do not have the possibility of getting better and are terminally ill. Another reason is that maybe they have a mental illness or are a harm to themselves and others. On the other hand, some people believe that life has value and great worth and that being euthanized takes away that value in having life. There is much argument and debate over whether or not Euthanasia is ever justified. At the end of the day, it’s based on what a person believes is right. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to. However, Euthanasia can never be justified because it makes people believe that life is not worth living if you are terminally ill, deformed, in a coma, have a disability, feel that you are a burden to someone, in unbearable pain or have the right to commit suicide. No matter how bad life gets, people should know that life is always worth living. When someone consents to being euthanized or having someone else be euthanized, they may miss out on memories and life’s joys. There is a lot of pain in life that people have to deal with, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to decide that they or anyone else should die. This also does not give anyone the right to inject drugs into someone in order to kill them peacefully. It doesn’t matter if you are just trying to help

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.

In Rachel’s “Active and Passive Euthanasia” he explores how the perception of the difference between active and passive euthanasia has no ethical weight. The American Medical Association, quoted by Rachels in his argument, justifies passive euthanasia via ‘comfort care’ or the cease of care as something that could be deemed as ethically acceptable, medically speaking as the physician is not actively doing anything to cause harm to one whose care they are presiding over. Furthermore the AMA is quoted as being a strong opponent of the practice of active euthanasia due to the physician purposefully aiding the patient in euthanasia violating the Hippocratic oath all physicians must take. Rachel’s argues that ‘allowing’ someone to die puts the bystander

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.

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.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Centre for Health Development (2004) explains that the term euthanasia comes from the Greek word for “good death”. The modern definition for euthanasia, according to the WHO, is “a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma of another person” (WHO, 2004, p. 25). There are two types of euthanasia: active and passive. Active euthanasia involves an action that directly causes another’s death and can be voluntary or involuntary (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Passive euthanasia involves the withholding of treatment from a terminally ill patient with the intended consequence of hastening death; this can involve refraining from nutrition, hydration, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or potentially life-saving

I believe in the power of storytelling. February 2015, Valentina Maureira lays in a hospital bed. From her room, she filmed and posted a youtube video in which she said and I quote: “My name is Valentina Maureira, I am fourteen and I suffer from cystic fibrosis. I need to speak urgently with the president because I am tired of living with this disease, and she can authorize an injection that will allow me to sleep forever.” A desperate plea from a young and innocent girl that managed to move her South American nation’s - Chile - 20 million people. Cystic fibrosis is a nasty incurable genetic disease where patients have their lungs clogged and organs thickened due to mucus. Her plea for euthanasia came after another patient who had been resting in a bed beside hers, died a month ago.

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.

Euthanasia, the ‘mercy killing’, has definitely been one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas. Euthanasia is defined “an action or an omission, aimed at and causally implicated in, the death of another for her/his own sake” (Foot, 1997, as cited in Robert, 2004, p. 145). Euthanasia differs from murder, because the action causing the death is for the sake of the person to be killed. Someone might say that the person wanted to die anyway, so why ending his or her lives can be wrong? Is active euthanasia –acting to end the life of another- ever a right moral action? It is not an easy debate whether it is right or wrong to help end someone’s life. Some people might argue that

Euthanasia is a global issue that is observed differently in many cultures and religions. In Japan, voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is not accepted to perform in all medical cases. However, it legally practices in the limit circumstances. In a study conducted on nurses’ attitudes toward patients’ requests for euthanasia, Tanida et al (2002) found that Japanese nurses didn’t support the patients’ request to die. They also didn’t want to engage in helping physicians perform euthanasia. 53% of the nurse who had been asking by patients to terminate their death denied taking active steps in this act. Only 23% of them participated in voluntary active euthanasia as something ethically right. And 14% agreed to practice if it were legal. The underlying