Active and Passive Euthanasia

It has been argued that for people on life support systems and people with long standing diseases causing much pain and distress, euthanasia is a better choice. It helps in relieving them from pain and misery. In cases like terminal cancers when the patient is in much pain and when people associated with them also are put through a lot of pain and misery, it is much more practical and humane to grant the person his/her wish to end his/her own life in a relatively painless and merciful way.

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).

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.

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

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

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

Certain situations where Voluntary Active Euthanasia is morally permissible include; mental illness and terminal illness. The first case would be a 50 year old woman who is severely depressed with no physical illness. This woman has suffered her whole life from depression, taken numerous treatments and has failed to find a

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.

Others may say from the Smith and Jones example that Jones had different intentions from the beginning than smith did, so that what makes Jones different from Smith. They may argue by saying active and passive euthanasia are different even if the outcome is the same. Everyone thinks active euthanasia is far worse than passive euthanasia because active euthanasia is you wanting to do it and passive is letting it naturally happen. Some believe that it’s unfair to be held someone accountable even though they didn’t take any action. Just because two individuals have the same desire and motive, both should not be judge the same if one of them didn’t take action. The individual that took action should only be the one to be blame for. For example,

In James Rachel’s article Active and Passive Euthanasia she discusses the difference killing someone and letting someone die. Active Euthanasia is the act of killing someone for any reason. For example, if someone is in critical care and you give him or her a lethal injection to relive his or her suffering that is active euthanasia. On the contrary, if you let someone die from their illness and do not try and save them then that is passive euthanasia. In the second half of the article the author discusses the question whether or not killing someone is more morally wrong then letting someone die. She uses the example of a baby playing in a bathtub and if the baby was to die then the father would get a great reward. In one case the father goes and drowns the baby while in the other case the baby slips and the father watches the baby drown. The case the author makes is that if killing someone is worse then letting them die, the second scenario should hold more weight in court then the first. The issue is watching the baby die is just as worse as drowning him.

Passive Euthanasia can be defined as withholding treatment or letting someone die. Typically this is more acceptable in the medical realm than active euthanasia. This is not the case in Whose Life Is It Anyway? Ken, who was examined and cleared to be mentally sound, demanded that he

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 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

According to Webster’s dictionary the term euthanasia Is defined as, “ the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering.” Now then there are two primary types of euthanasia according to Rachel’s. We have Passive Euthanasia in which the physician does nothing to bring about the death of the patient. By this physician doing nothing, ceasing treatment, the patient dies of the illness he already was diagnosed with. The patient dies of natural causes. The doctor is therefore letting the patient die. Then we have Active Euthanasia were the physician does something to bring about the death of the patient. The physician gives the terminally ill patient a lethal injection therefore now making the doctor the