Is Euthanasia Be A Morally Permissible Action?

“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.

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

Today, the fact that euthanasia is morality or immorality permissible is a very controversial issue debated and discussed by doctors and philosophers. This point generated a controversial debate. The discussion takes into account the ethics of medical

In this paper, I will discuss euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and whether there are circumstances under which the two are ever ethically permissible. I will also be examining active and passive euthanasia and how philosophers view both differently. I will cite the text “Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues”, philosophers like James Rachel, and cases such as Dax Cowart and Brittany Maynard. Using these, I will develop an argument for why active voluntary euthanasia is ethically permissible.

Opinions of euthanasia and assisted suicide vary by country to country, and only a few nations permit euthanasia in the case of terminally ill patients (van der Heide et. al., 2007, p. 1957). The public discourse surrounding the ethical, and subsequently legal status of euthanasia is frequently heated and somewhat polarized, because the debate cuts to the very heart of notions of human rights and ethics. Unfortunately, this only tends to further obscure the issue at hand, which is in reality a fairly simple question. Namely, what is more important; the preservation of individual human life for as long as possible, potentially despite the wishes of the individual, or allowing an individual to choose the time and manner of his or her death? As will be seen, the only reasonable answer to this question is to favor individual freedom, but first, it will be necessary to counter some of the distractions and misinformation that opponents of euthanasia use to avoid confronting the essential question at hand.

The act of taking someone’s life is known to be wrong. It is wrong to most people, regardless of their religion, race or ethical views. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is not so straight forward. Many people say that they would kill under no circumstance, whether due to personal ethics or religious reasons. What if the person was constantly suffering or had even asked to be killed to end their pain? This idea of killing someone or giving someone that is I constant

Euthanasia, also known as voluntary or assisted suicide, is used for terminally ill patients to end their lives instead of undergoing painful treatments and torment of waiting for death. There are, however, two different ways in which A can bring about B’s death. In this essay I will present the distinction between active and passive euthanasia as explained by James Rachels in his article called “Active and Passive Euthanasia”. I will also debate whether euthanasia is justified or not by presenting arguments both pro and against euthanasia including pain and financial burden as justifications for euthanasia and abuse of rights as against euthanasia.

For most of human history, there was no need for us define death. (Colby 74). With the recent advancements to technology, the lines are being blurred. Until around 15 years ago there were few cases of individuals wanting to refuse treatment and therefore there was no basis for rights involving refusal of medical treatments or euthanasia (Colby 83). The concept of euthanasia is nothing new, but with the evolution of medical technology, the arguments for and against it are advancing. No matter the circumstance, death is an excruciating process. Euthanasia is described as the induced death of terminally ill patients with the intention of alleviating pain and suffering (Nordqvist). Because death is so grim and final, euthanasia is among the most extensively debated issues. While the discussion of euthanasia is naturally controversial, the use of language has undoubtedly affected its dynamic. Language has impacted the discussion of euthanasia through legislation, Measure 16, and the words and

The issue of whether active and passive euthanasia are distinct continues to be important to philosophers, ethicists and health care professionals. Euthanasia is the act of ending a patient’s life when the circumstance for that patient is unbearable or untreatable by medical treatment (Ozcelick, Tekir, Samancioglu, Fadiloglu & Ozkara, 2014, p. 94). Namely, there is active and passive euthanasia. Both are indicative of the acts that root in the intention to end a patient’s life. For the purpose of this paper, we will establish that active euthanasia is the physical or direct act of causing death, as to inject a patient with a lethal injection (Ozcelick et al, 2014, p. 94). In similarity, passive euthanasia defines the act from which a health care provider withholds life-sustaining treatments such as not providing water or food as to inevitably cause death (Ozcelick et al, 2014, p. 94). I will argue that there is a spurious moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, as both are contingent on the same line of the intention to end ones life. Although there are compelling arguments that will establish the difference between active and passive euthanasia, it fails to seek the definitive conclusion of both. This conclusion is that both, in any such way, lead to the end of ones life. To support this argument I will first invest in explaining that that the health care provider will always have the knowledge that either active or passive euthanasia will lead to death.

Professor Bill Talbott from University of Washington defines killing and letting die as follows: killing is the direct action of a person involved in the process of ending another life, while letting die is consciously not taking actions to preserve someone’s life [1]. For example, if a terminally ill cancer patient without hope for a cure or improvement decides to end their life, then is the way they choose to end their life significant? Many circumstances commonly encountered that raises the question of the ethical implications and differences between killing and letting die are physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, euthanasia for terminally ill patients, do not resuscitate (DNR) command by next of kin, withholding all care and nourishment from a vegetative or comatose patient, or unwanted premature infants [2]. The concepts of killing a patient or letting a patient die are only considered under extreme medical conditions, mostly at the request of the patient. At which point, the distinction between killing and letting die becomes significant to appease the moral stigma that may follow from aiding in the act of ending life. Kantian moral theory states that every rationale person is equal, entitled to autonomy and every life is equal. It also states that each life is valuable and it is our moral duty to protect life [2]. Both direct action (killing) and indirect action (letting die) are morally wrong because they are both conscious acts of aiding in the

Euthanasia means,’ the painless killing of patients suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, also known as “assisted suicide” or ‘mercy killing’’. James Rachel asks a very interesting question to the reader. He asks if active euthanasia is morally permissible. Rachel creates a distinction between active and passive euthanasia for the reader. Furthermore he not only defends the idea but he brings it one step forward to say that there is nor should there be any difference them. Rachel creates a distinction between active and passive euthanasia for the reader. Active is the act of death at the purposeful hand of the doctor by lethal injection or by any other means. Passive euthanasia involves letting the

Euthanasia means the painless killing of patients suffering from an incurable and painful diseases or in an irreversible coma, it is also known as “assisted suicide” or ‘mercy killing’. James Rachel asks a very interesting question to the reader. He asks if active euthanasia is morally permissible? Je has an affirmative stance and defends the idea and brings it one step forward to say that there is nor should there be any difference between active and passive euthanasia. Rachel creates a distinction between active and passive euthanasia for the reader. Active is the act of death at the purposeful hand of the doctor by lethal injection or by any other means. Passive euthanasia involves letting the party die by natural reasons. This option might be withholding antibiotics or performing some minor surgery to fix a problem that if left untreated might cause death; even if this includes an immense amount of suffering

The term Euthanasia was originated from the Greek word “good death”. However, there is constant debate on whether or not this “good death” is morally right and thus has become an issue of much controversy. Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of a hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Mirriam-Webster). This topic is especially sensitive among the general public because it involves a choice of life and death for a single person. There are two types of euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, where the patient has the ultimate decision, and involuntary euthanasia, in which a third party makes the decision for the patient. In this paper I will discuss the details of voluntary euthanasia and why it is considered such a big moral issue. After talking about voluntary euthanasia I will delve into how both Aristotle and John Stuart Mill would view euthanasia. This paper will bring about the ethical theories of both Aristotle and Mill and relate these theories to the topic of euthanasia.

Americans , arguably more than any other nationality, have a right to their opinion and there exists few subjects that generate more opinions than does euthanasia. The debate concerning the morality of euthanasia parsimoniously rests on the moral assessment of whether or not the physician intentionally kills or intentionally let die the patient. An assumption has been perpetuated that there is a line of demarcation between intending to let die and intending to kill. This pseudo-practical barrier is so relevant that our laws have determined that killing for humane reasons is morally inferior to letting someone die an agonizing and prolonged death. The problem with either position is that they are based on emotions disguised as morality. I believe that the emotional and moral challenge occurs at the moment “the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made” (Rachels, 1975) not when intending to kill or intending to let die. I argue that in light of the initial decision to allow death and alleviate suffering that there exists a moral distinction between intending to let die and intending to kill especially since it was the initial decision that dictated the intention. It is at that moment that active euthanasia becomes the most morally relevant option.

Euthanasia is an arising moral contemporary issue. A brief definition of euthanasia would be the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies" (Netherlands State Commission on Euthanasia). This may look like an only solution to many people whose lives are seemingly wasting away, or have been fully spent. Whether we should let such people die is an argument that is yet to mature. As sincere as this plea may sound, there are certain things to consider should euthanasia be legalized and things run out of hand. Hence this paper will look at the dangers of legalizing voluntary euthanasia.