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.

“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.

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.

If a child is born with a horrible disease and the only way to survive is to have an operation, which will in a sense allow the child to live, but under poor conditions, the parents have a difficult decision to make. It might be very easy to think about themselves and how raising this child would perhaps be a burden to them or a burden to society. Once again in order for euthanasia to be morally permissible they have to make to decision based on what is good for the child. This is where another crucial point comes into play. Who is to say that even though this child will grow up with severe abnormalities and discomfort that they won't find happiness? "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p.795) As you can see, the decision of ending a person's life is a very delicate and hard decision. It is however, a decision we are only allowed to make if it is passive euthanasia being considered. As of right now, active euthanasia is not permissible. We now need to discuss what would happen if active euthanasia were permissible.

There is a widely shared view that active and passive euthanasia are importantly different. It is said to be one thing (passive euthanasia) to let patients die, which may sometimes be permissible, but it is quite another (active euthanasia) to kill them, which never is. This discrimination between two forms of euthanasia has been forcefully attacked by certain philosophers on the ground that the underlying distinction between killing and letting die is either not clear or, if clear, not morally important. This paper defends that there is distinction between killing and letting die. My first argument that will defend my thesis will be based on the definition of killing or letting to die and the difference in the intentions that accompany the

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.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

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.

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.

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.

Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because treatment was not given to them, it usually happens because of patients request, for example if ninety-seven year old woman was diagnosed with cancer she may choose to not undergo dialysis. J Gay-Williams objects passive euthanasia, he argues that passive euthanasia is not true euthanasia because the patient’s death is not intentional, even though the known outcome is death. A relatable example can be driving on a set a tires for a while will wear them out, but the drivers intention is not to wear out their tires, it is just a known consequence of driving on the tires. He believes that the phrase of passive euthanasia is misleading because the person the person involved is not killed, and the fact that treatment is being withheld does not

A source of evidence that supports that James Rachels is an act utilitarian consequentialist are his comments about active and passive euthanasia. Though he acknowledges that legally there are differences between the two, morally there are no different because “instance death is no greater an evil than the patient's continued existence.” Both active and passive euthanasia result in death, but a patient desiring to end his life would be happier to end his life quickly, rather than to suffer for a long, extended period fighting an incurable disease.

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

From James Rachels’ article on active and passive euthanasia, the writer introduced the AMA statement that talks about the two kinds of euthanasia. For passive euthanasia (letting someone die), it is morally permissible in some situation. But active euthanasia, which is physician-assisted death, is not morally permissible. Doctors can retain the treatments under many circumstances, and it is not wrong if the patient dies, but the doctors can’t "kill" the patient. This is known as Conventional Doctrine on Euthanasia. But the author James Rachels thinks passive euthanasia is not any better than active euthanasia.