Euthanasi Active And 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.

Although, pain can be excoriating and unfathomable thus, leaves the patient with no choice but to live with it and contemplate whether to terminate his or her life by performing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Apparently, the patient has right to die if he or she cannot endure physical or mental pain. Imagine, a patient is just barely lingering on the battle between life and death, one should able to make a decision to move into eternity with dignity, without suffering or pain, with their loved one present. So I could consider this technique as killing/letting die because the patient requests physician and physician has a duty to respect patient’s request by letting him/her to die. Killing or letting die does not matter as long as the patient requests to the physician.

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

Killing is a form of active euthanasia and letting the patient die is a form of passive euthanasia. Rachel, as a virtue theorist author uses 2 examples of killing and letting die. She also questions why let die babies with impairments such Spina Bifida or Down syndrome withholding treatments instead of kill them. Also, in the article by Rachel, she uses an example of a man that wanted the fortune of his family, but there is a boy who is the first to get it if something happened to the person actually in charge of the fortune. So he intentionally kills the boy so he can have the money. However, the same author uses the same case but this time, she changed to letting the boy die. When the boy is taking his shower, he enters, but the boy falls and hits his head causing him to drown, but the man just stands and watches the boy die. Moreover, both of them are forms of death. With letting die you foreseen the outcome that is death you are intending relieve their pain. With killing you are intending the death. Furthermore what is crueler between

Morality, in its basic sense, can easily be interpreted as a view or a response that is influenced by a culture. Given its conditioned thoughts, a single person may not take a stance where they have the ultimate discretion of what deems the distinction of moral things, and those that are not. Instead of attempting to grasp this larger picture, a second thought to ponder is whether or not there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia. Breaking this argument down a bit more, our ultimate goal is to prove that the acts of killing and letting die are indistinguishable. Philosophers such as Phillipa Foot, believes that there is a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die, however the case she presents is not as easy to influence as is James Rachels’ argument in “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” In opposition to Foot, Rachels creates the argument that there is not a morally relevant distinction between the acts of killing and letting die. Although Rachels presents a more influential case, he also suggest that we should be inclined to change the laws and medical policy around euthanasia. Given this implied suggestion, we must ignore his suggestion, because it is not necessarily inclusive to his conclusion.

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

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 James Rachel’s article Active and Passive Euthanasia, James provides the argument that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia because in the end, either through inaction or action, it both results in death and there are no moral differences in ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. Rachel provides several different arguments to support his case including a patient dying of terminal cancer, and two uncles and the death of their nephews.

James Rachel believes that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia. He gives the example of either drowning a baby or letting a baby drown. Both ends with the baby dying, and in both cases, the intention was to kill the child (pg. 596). He also argues that active euthanasia has a preference to passive euthanasia because it can hasten one's death and prevent them from suffering to death (pg. 594). Rachel also believes that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is unwise and that the distinction should be used by physicians because they have to by law (pg. 594).

One main argument for Euthanasia is a Utilitarian one. Utilitarians believe that any action should cause the

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.

In his article published in 1975, James Rachels seeks to pose an unsound difference between passive and active euthanasia, and explains a strong case as to how these two are essentially the same thing when it comes to committing murder. One can argue both cases: according to the American Medical Association “The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another- mercy killing- Is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association” to which Rachels makes several strong arguments against this principle throughout his article. First, he explains to cases that seem very similar with one exception each: The first case is about Smith, who is seeking personal

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and