Arguments Against Active Euthanasia

Every state in the U.S. gives a patient the right to create an advance directive, which outlines to what extent live-saving treatment should be carried out or when it should be discontinued under specifically listed circumstances (Golden). Supporters of euthanasia insist on giving every patient the right to choose the time of their death, and advance directives provide them with such an opportunity. The American Medical Directors Association is in support of this cause. They encourage doctors to address advance directives to their patients so to provide them with a medical plan that is both well-planned and accommodative (Position Statement). Not only can choice be handled more appropriately by ways other than euthanasia, the trust crucial to a healthy doctor-patient relationship can be better protected without it. Giving doctors the power to kill their patients, for any purpose, destroys the trust instilled between the two. However, patients facing impending death who are experiencing significant discomfort have the right to be sedated to the point that their discomfort is relieved, even if that entails hastening death (Golden). With patients exercising the rights to both request additional medication and refuse further treatment, it is entirely unnecessary for them to risk the relationship established between them and their doctor for a cause that can easily be replaced or put to better use. The World Medical Association directs their views to this relationship. The WMA Resolution on Physician-Assisted Suicide states, "Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically." The immorality of the physician’s actions illustrates how the relationship is potentially destroyed as a result

But doctors should not be involved in directly causing death. This brings us to the controversial point of active and passive euthanasia. Some people think there is no real difference between the two, since stopping a treatment and administering one are both deliberate acts. But there is a moral difference between letting a person die peacefully and deliberately killing the person. Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep alive.

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.

Euthanasia, is the act of killing a person painlessly for reasons of mercy. It is known worldwide by many people, in many countries. It is illegal in the United States, but Physician Assisted Suicide is legal in 6 states. Physician Assisted Suicide is the voluntary ending of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with direct or indirect assistance of a physician. The debate on if Euthanasia should be legal has been going on for hundreds of years, really becoming prominent in the 1920’s then dying down. But today this topic is as strong as it was almost a hundred years ago. In the book Taking Sides by Stephen Satris, however has two opposing views by two different people. Both are philosophers, and these are their sides.

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

Letting a patient die from an incurable disease may be seen as allowing the disease to be the natural cause of death (Kerridge, 1). Opponents of physician-assisted suicide as well as Euthanasia believe that if a doctor takes on the role of the “executioner”, as oppose to his role as a “healer” will be corrupted and the trust that exists between a patient and doctor will be violated (Golden 1). Opponents use the Hippocratic Oath which states “I must care in matters of life and death,” as evidence of a doctor’s ultimate rule not to administer lethal drugs (Diaconescu 1).Although some physicians feel that it is not ethical to help their patients die, other physicians believe fulfilling a patient's wish to end their suffering at the end of life is part of the responsibility a physician accepts when caring for the person. Some people might object that more harm is done by ending the patient’s life, believing that death is the greatest harm that can be done to a person (Diaconescu

The Conflicting Ethics with the right to die Adam Kaplinsky Wilmington University What do you do if you have a patient that is in deep pain and has been given a terminal prognosis? You look into the face of this patient and see someone who is weak and unable to take care of him or herself grimacing in pain. The patient knows the prognosis, which is not good, and he or she realizes at this point that their condition will only worsen. The next step is death, but that could take a while, and in the meantime, they must put up with the pain and discomfort that they are faced with in their last stage of life. The last journey could take weeks, days, or even months but both you and the patient realize that it will not be easy.

In his defense for the moral permissibility of suicide, Hume posited that suicide could be morally allowable if the good it accorded the individual outweighed the loss it brought to the society (Beauchamp et al. 2014, p. 81). Hume’s line of thought bears close resemblance to principle of double effect which highlights that an action with explicit harmful consequences can be deemed permissible if the benefit outweighs the loss, the act is in itself good, or of the intention is to achieve the good effect while assuming the bad. In the context of patients who are terminally ill, the rule of double effect as explicated by Aquinas is designed to vindicate the physician’s actions of administering overdoses of injections that are harmful but are aimed at relieving the patient of pain. The justification of such aided suicide under the rule of double effect has been supported by the U.S Supreme court (Olsen, Swetz, & Mueller 2010, p. 952). It is however, critical to note that this rule, much like Hume’s argument does not state that all suicides can be deemed justifiable, rather, they can only be applied when the patient is under extreme

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.

Voluntary active euthanasia refers to an intentional and persistent request by a clearly competent patient for aid in dying. As a result, the patient of the person acting on behalf of the patient, for example, a family member or physician, takes active measures to hasten the death by either self-administration, administration by a tier, or the provision of a means. In voluntary active euthanasia, the assistant acts last. However, scholars, such as Daniel Callahan does not support any social policy concerning voluntary active euthanasia, since it results in an equality of power by putting a patient’s life and death in the hands of another person, which violates human dignity.

The ultimate goal from all sources in support of euthanasia is to ensure the patients has " a comfortable and peaceful environment in which death occurs" (Lonnquist & Weiss, 2012). However, some differences occur, as there are more stipulation before the approval of euthanasia found in the text, such as " a written witnessed request is provided and two physicians agree that death is appropriate" (Lonnquist & Weiss, 2012). In addition, the arguments opposing euthanasia correlate with one another, both in the text and outside of the text. For instance, all sources suggest that " suicide will begin to become acceptable in society, and a physician's willingness to participate may be interpreted by the patient that society would prefer that suicide occur. In contrast to the other references, the in text sources, reflect upon other measures that can be taken to minimize the pain felt, aside from death such as hospice.

There are varying degrees of morality that can be distinguished within this argument. First, there is the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia pertains to the intentional act of causing a patient’s death, while passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatment to allow a patient to die. Passive euthanasia is also sometimes called a natural death. The American Journal of Public Health released a survey in which many respondents asserted a difference between withdrawing treatment and deciding not to initiate treatment (Solomon,

Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or an irreversible coma. The two subcategories of euthanasia are active and passive. Active euthanasia is the act of directly causing a patient’s death, such as administering a lethal drug or medication. Passive euthanasia is the act of withdrawing treatment or care from a patient, ultimately causing their death as well. While there is a common belief that passive euthanasia is morally superior to active euthanasia, an analysis of James Rachels’ argument proves that these two acts are morally equal. I will begin by explaining Rachels’ argument on how killing and letting die are equal on moral grounds. Next, I will go on to identify the faults in Rachels’

“The mercy killing of patients by physicians, whether called “active euthanasia” or simply “euthanasia,” is a topic of long-standing controversy” (Mappes, Zembaty, and DeGrazia 59). “Although active euthanasia is presently illegal in all fifty states and the District of Columbia, proposals for its legalization have been recurrently advanced. Most commonly, these proposals call for the legalization of active euthanasia. There are some who consider active euthanasia in any form intrinsically immoral and, for this reason, oppose the legalization of active euthanasia. Others are opposed to legalization because of their conviction that physicians, in particular, should not kill” (Mappes, Zembaty, and DeGrazia 63). Others are also opposed to legalization because of the concern with the “adverse social consequences” (Mappes, Zembaty, and DeGrazia 63). For those very reasons, active euthanasia is not an acceptable form of euthanasia.

Four types of physician assisted suicide or euthanasia can be committed. The physician can kill the patient intentionally without the patients permission or request, the physician can kill the patient intentionally with a request, the physician allows the patient to die by stopping any treatment being given, and lastly the physician stops any treatment that he knows will not better the patient. Each of these tupes of assisted suicide can put a doctor in a position of discomfort. Occasionally physicians do this as a patients dying wish and see it as helping their patients end their struggle or doing them a favor, but it is not productive, it causes more harm. In the UK some families who saw those patients die with assistance saw it as a right. It was discovered that a quarter of responders who have been diagnosed with a deathly illness would rather have an earlier death. Some