Assess The Difference Between Active And Passive Euthanasia

Rachels’s third point in the argument states that there is not a fine line between passive and active euthanasia. He sets up two scenarios involving two cousins. In the first scenario, Smith plans to drown his cousin in order to inherit money. The second scenario involves a person by the name of Jones. Jones plans on drowning his cousin for money, but the cousin falls, hits their head and drowns without Jones’ help. Jones witnessed the entire incident and could have stopped it, instead he allowed the tragedy to happen. Rachels concludes that killing and allowing to die, or active and passive euthanasia, are equal. They have the same intention. Rachels sums up his last argument by pointing out the major flaw of the AMA’s position on euthanasia. Even if taking away treatment seems helpful to the patient, the end result is still death. The same occurs for active euthanasia. Rachels concludes that passive euthanasia is just as moral as active euthanasia. Therefore, active euthanasia must be allowed if passive is also allowed.

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-

A newlywed diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, Brittany Maynard, lived in California. California is one of the many states in the United States that prohibits euthanasia and assisted suicide— euthanasia is the act of assisting in the death of a person suffering from an incurable disease (Macionis 402-403); however, assisted suicide and euthanasia are not the same thing. The law denying euthanasia and assisted suicide brought conflicts because Brittany wanted to pass peacefully. In order to fulfill her wish, Brittany and her husband moved to Oregon, a state that allows euthanasia and assisted suicide with the “Death With Dignity Act.” Brittany joined a non-profit organization named “Compassion & Choices” to make a video on her choice and to become an advocate for the “Death With Dignity Act.” Millions have watched the video, and since her death, four states have introduced end-of-life bills (Sanburn). The controversy over the legalization and the requirements of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide has been debated for many years. To understand the issues, one must know the ethical point of views in both religious and in the workplace, the laws and requirements currently in place.

Life and death is a controversial topic. To most, death is negative. Within life you laugh, smile, communicate and create new experiences both good and bad. It is a human right to be alive. Although, if people have a right to live they also have the right to die. Tragic things happen everyday because life has a very dark sense of humor. After certain experiences life becomes more like a continuous cycle of suffering than anything else. The laughs become riddled with pain and life becomes dull in the best moments. With strict restrictions, physician assisted suicide (also known as Physician Aid-in-Dying) will offer a more dignified and comfortable way for terminally-ill patients to end their suffering.

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.

According to the Health Law Institute at Dalhousie University, assisted suicide is “the act of intentionally killing oneself with the assistance of another who provides the knowledge, means or both.” Euthanasia is a “deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending the life of another person to relieve that person’s suffering where the act is the cause of death (Health Law). As of June 17, 2016, both assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal in Canada as long as the established criteria are met. Canada’s government can pave the way for other countries to legalize these practices if they are able to establish specific criteria, evaluate the implications on religious institutions and individual practitioners, and provide viable alternatives to every citizen.

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.

Craig Gannon and Eva Garland, authors of “Legalization of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Professional’s View,” argue the moral and legal rights and wrongs of euthanasia in America and in the United Kingdom. Gannon and Garland explain “Both ‘sides’ have similar aspirations; to respect patients’ wishes and to reduce any suffering.” (131)

Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual’s life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering from a terminal illness or injury. Euthanasia is currently a criminal offense. However, in particular situations, passive euthanasia (letting one die) is morally permissible, but active euthanasia (assisted suicide) is considered ethically impermissible and illegal. Doctors may withhold treatments and allow natural death, and it is not wrong if the patient dies, but the actor must never actively kill the individual. In this paper, I will be illustrating an ethical dilemma, and the ethical dilemma will be on the topic of euthanasia. Then I will provide solutions to the dilemma, and one of the theories I will be using is the classical moral

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

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

Active euthanasia is an act that causes death directly by a health care provider. This type of euthanasia can be carried out for example by administering a lethal injection. Assisted suicide is different in that the person is given the tools to commit suicide and follow through on the act themselves (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2014, p. 319). Active euthanasia and assisted suicide is legal only in the states of: Oregon, Montana, Vermont, and Washington ("State by State Guide," 2014).

When there is no more left that can be done or a patient simply refuses treatment physicians rely heavily on palliative sedation to ease the suffering of the patient and wait for “nature to run its course”. This seems to be the method of choice and the most humane way to die. The line between active euthanasia and palliative sedation is thin. Timing seems to be a driving factor as active would most definitely be more immediate and palliative is aided by powerful pain medications that allow the patient to die more naturally. Too much pain medication can kill someone too so, the correct dosage is vital so that the patient falls to the ailment and not a drug overdose. Physicians justify this method because either they have done all they could

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 passive methods are given towards patients in the ‘vegetable state’, as well as newborn babies that look as if they are too sick or disabled to continue life, or even mentally impaired elders. Doctors may not give food or water to the patients, give them less attention, or sometimes write notes to other doctors giving an order to cut the supply of oxygen. On the contrary, active euthanasia is a ‘one-and-done’ type of procedure. Methods include giving pills or drugs for the patient to take, lethally injecting the patient, gassing the patient, or even giving out a ‘peaceful pill’. The peaceful pill is a pill given by the doctor to the patient. When the patient takes the pill, they fall into a heavy sleep. However, they never wake up; thus