Euthanasia Is Morally Permissible?

For instance, if a doctor gave an overdose of medication or gave a lethal injection this would be considered an active euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia is withholding something needed for life. Examples of this might be taking someone off of a feeding tube or life support and letting them die on their own.

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.

Passive euthanasia can be defined as letting the patient die. The doctor takes the patient off their treatment and let the disease run through until they die. Active euthanasia is not legal today, and leans more toward killing the patient. The patient is ready to die so the doctor gives a lethal injection to speed up the process. Physician assisted suicide is almost a combination

There are many common pregnancy alternatives, but most often the resulting decision is abortion because it is effortless. Abortion is endings a women’s pregnancy by removing or forcing a fetus or embryo from the mother’s womb before it is able to survive on its own. Not all abortions are purposely done some are spontaneous like when a women that has a miscarriage. Rather abortion is done purposely or naturally it is a worldwide complication as to it being wrong or right. Abortion is an ethical issue that will be analyzed according to a personal worldview and Christian worldview. Ethical thinking will be examined by value-based decisions that address abortion from the perspective of a Christian worldview and comparing it to a personal assumption by addressing ethical dilemma, core beliefs, resolution, evaluation, and comparison.

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.

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.

The difference between active and passive euthanasia is, active euthanasia is where a physician or a medical professional gives someone a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia is where either the doctors don't do something that keeps someone alive, or they stop doing something that is keeping them alive.

The ethical debate on non-voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue due to its multifaceted nature. This topic examines the morality of ending a human’s life in circumstances where the person is incapable of issuing explicit consent. These cases would include utilizing euthanasia on very young children or someone in a vegetative state. There lacks consent with young children since they cannot speak to provide consent. Explicit consent is lacking with someone in a vegetative state since they are incapable of deciding at that moment to continue living or end their life.

Millions of precious lives have been deliberately taken throughout the world due to the new Euthanasia Law. Euthanasia is the practicing of assisted suicide, due to terminally ill patients or depression. The practicing has just been legalized September 2015, and will be put into effect in California January 1 2016. Although, it is still being argued if adolescents should have the right fro this and if it’s morally correct all together. Euthanasia should be illegal throughout the world, because people shouldn’t be the ones to decide their own death.

With this paper I plan to address the topic of euthanasia. I will cover the philosophy behind why it is not a regular practice, and differentiate between multiple forms. After introducing the issue, itself I will speak briefly on the legality of the issue. This should result in the principles of myself, Peter Singer, Don Marquis, and Michael Tooley all being brought together in this discussion. Ultimately, I will lead this discussion into the direction of why I have found euthanasia to be a morally permissible action.

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.

According to Webster’s dictionary the term euthanasia Is defined as, “ the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering.” Now then there are two primary types of euthanasia according to Rachel’s. We have Passive Euthanasia in which the physician does nothing to bring about the death of the patient. By this physician doing nothing, ceasing treatment, the patient dies of the illness he already was diagnosed with. The patient dies of natural causes. The doctor is therefore letting the patient die. Then we have Active Euthanasia were the physician does something to bring about the death of the patient. The physician gives the terminally ill patient a lethal injection therefore now making the doctor the

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

Death has always been a controversial topic throughout the world. There are many theories as to where we go and what the meaning of life truly is. How one dies is important in today’s society, especially when it comes to the idea of suicide. Active euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering. It is illegal in some places, like France, but allowing patients to die is authorized by law in other places under certain conditions. Doug McManaman constructed an argument, “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” to defend his view that active euthanasia is never morally

Active euthanasia is the act of giving the means to a terminally ill patient to cause their death. Whereas, passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of treatment, or the failure to treat with the intention of causing the patient’s death. I believe that there is no moral difference between assisting someone to die on their own terms, and not allowing for interventions to take place in order to sustain the life of a person. In both of these cases the patient in question made the autonomous decision to not continue with their life in this way. The outcome is the same in both scenarios. In each of these a person is relieved of their suffering, through a means of death. The person assisting in reaching this outcome had the pure intention of respecting the patient’s wishes in both cases. The result of death for these patients is a more favorable outcome than any form of prolonged life.