Euthanasi Active And Passive Euthanasia

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

A. Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision.

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

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-

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

Passive Euthanasia, is the withhold, or removal of medical treatment brings about the death of a patient. For example a cancer patient stop chemotherapy. Active Euthanasia is the giving of a lethal treatment that brings about the death of a patient. James Rachels prefers active euthanasia since it's quick and ends the agony and misery of the person. With passive James Rachels, gives us extreme cases of patients and infants. Where they are days away from dying. Seeing them lay there in never ending pain, suffering until the very last minute. With these cases that Rachel's, provide it make us think differently how Active Euthanasia would be best for the patient or baby well being and end their agony. It's not an easy decision to make, but we have to think for the best for the patient.

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.

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.

Active euthanasia is also known as voluntary euthanasia. It is deliberately taking the steps to terminate the life of another person. An argument is that medication is meant to help control pain and make an individual feel better, not end their life. Although this form can be either voluntary or involuntary, active euthanasia is considered murder in Canada.

What is euthanasia and why is it such a complex matter that raises all different kinds of opinions? According to the American Dictionary, euthanasia is defined as "the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment." It can be active euthanasia (relieve person from pain by killing) or passive euthanasia (letting die). Newell-Smith raises the questions if the person has

Euthanasia has always been a controversial topic between the Catholic Church and society, as it is known as ‘Mercy Killing’. The Catholic Church’s perception of euthanasia is dissentient, as their strong beliefs demonstrate that it is unnecessary if ethics are followed through. However, society’s opinion contrasts, with the beliefs that it is a beneficial option for people who are undergoing a significant amount of pain or suffering. The Catholic Church believes that it can affect a person’s passage towards heaven and that it is a “morally unacceptable killing of a human person.” As is evident, the Catholic Church’s attitude strongly discourages the practice of euthanasia, therefore it is undetermined whether the increased desire for the legislation of euthanasia will ever be condoned by the church.