Euthanasi The End Product Of An Ill Individual

In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.

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.

“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.

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

If the option of euthanasia were available the sufferer could say their final goodbyes, savor precious moments with the ones they love, then, with the help of their physician, slip slowly into a peaceful sleep from which they would never awake. Ending the life of the patient would not only ensure that their suffering would finally be over, but it would give the family the peace of knowing that their loved one ended their life in a state of comfort. I am not saying that we should encourage someone to give up the fight of their life. Euthanasia is not to be forced onto someone. Euthanasia is an option to be given to those who have no other choice and are in desperate search of a solution to their suffering. Euthanasia is something to be turned to when the quality of life is so poor that the patient isn’t living, they are merely existing.

Many people would argue that it’s okay to end your life or someone else’s life, if they do not have the possibility of getting better and are terminally ill. Another reason is that maybe they have a mental illness or are a harm to themselves and others. On the other hand, some people believe that life has value and great worth and that being euthanized takes away that value in having life. There is much argument and debate over whether or not Euthanasia is ever justified. At the end of the day, it’s based on what a person believes is right. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to. However, Euthanasia can never be justified because it makes people believe that life is not worth living if you are terminally ill, deformed, in a coma, have a disability, feel that you are a burden to someone, in unbearable pain or have the right to commit suicide. No matter how bad life gets, people should know that life is always worth living. When someone consents to being euthanized or having someone else be euthanized, they may miss out on memories and life’s joys. There is a lot of pain in life that people have to deal with, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to decide that they or anyone else should die. This also does not give anyone the right to inject drugs into someone in order to kill them peacefully. It doesn’t matter if you are just trying to help

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.

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.

In this essay, we are going to analyze the main ideas included in “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels to provide a response to the following question: Does James Rachels in “The Morality of Euthanasia” successfully argue that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable?

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.

Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death someone who is suffering from an incurable disease. The word ‘euthanasia’ has Greek roots, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia, the deliberate hastening of a person 's death, was supported by Socrates and Plato in ancient Greece and Rome. The Hemlock Society, a national right-to-die organization, likely took its name from the practice of using hemlock “as a means of hastening death” (S. Biswas). Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives through euthanasia? Is it morally or ethically wrong to allow doctors to assist patients in killing themselves? What are the limits? Who sets the rules? Where has the value placed on human life gone? Euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong and

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 cases of involuntary euthanasia, the patient is able to provide informed consent, but does not do so. For example, a young man is in agony after being severely injured in a car accident. He begs the doctor to do anything to save him. Knowing that the young man’s pain is only going to get worse and that he will die in a matter of hours, the doctor gives the young man a lethal dose of medication in order to spare him additional pain and end his life. Despite the fact that someone’s motive for euthanizing another person against their will could seem moral, I believe the practice of involuntary euthanasia is highly immoral and equivalent to murder. Not surprisingly, involuntary euthanasia is almost universally condemned in civilized society.

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