Kuhse The Difference Between 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

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.

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.

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.

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-

The word euthanasia, when translated, means "good death." Physician- assisted suicide is a fast, painless death that every terminally-ill person should have the liberty to choose. Euthanasia is not a drawn out process like many terminally-ill patients have to deal with. However most people want to die at home in peace and euthanasia gives people this right. The author indicates that more than half of Americans die in the hospital and that is a sad occurrence (Kim 171). PAS and euthanasia allows patients freedom from physical pain and emotional suffering. According to Willke, proponents of euthanasia are quick to accuse doctors of not letting a patient die in peace (1). The author states there are two different definitions for euthanasia. First voluntary active euthanasia is intentionally administering medications to cause the patient's death at the

Advances in medical technology indisputably save and extend lives, and as a result, the human life expectancy is much higher in areas where such technology is available. By contrast, these medical advances also extend death and blur the lines between life and death (Alters). Dying is now commonly a prolonged and painful event, and people are considering dangerous solutions, such as euthanasia, to find relief from the effects that are associated with death. Euthanasia is defined as passive or active depending on its circumstances. In passive euthanasia, patients typically refuse life extending medical treatment. Passive euthanasia is legal as the fatal disease is considered the primary cause of death (Yount). Active euthanasia is often viewed as synonymous with physician-assisted suicide which is much different than passive euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide consists of a patient requesting lethal medication from his physician as an aide in taking his own life (“Physician-Assisted Suicide”).

According to Rachels (248), a proponent of euthanasia, states the act is justified if death is the only way out of one’s awful pain. On the other hand, Gay Williams (353), an opponent of euthanasia, views it as immoral to take someone’s life before his or her own natural death time reaches. Medically, euthanasia can be acceptable for those patients that are extremely suffering and their doctors have no idea on what to do to help a patient whose condition is only worsening. Often, it is administered on consultation with the family members of the patient in question. However, health practitioners are held within the bounds of professionalism where they are made to understand sanctity of life. Doctors are not supposed to decide the future of

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

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.

Euthanasia is a big help to people who have a disease that comes with lots of pain. The disease could be terminal and it could have so much agony that some people decide that the suffering to death isn’t worth it and instead desire an early death. In times doctors decide that death is better for the patient because they see all the suffering that comes along with what they have. “My aim in helping the patient was not to cause death. My aim

Euthanasia is a huge controversial topic which raises many questions, the main one being; “Is euthanasia morally justifiable?” The Introducing Ethics textbook gives the definition for euthanasia: “Greek for happy (eu) death (thanatos). Euthanasia is the intentional killing of another from a motivation to relieve suffering, etc.” (668). There are two sides to the ethical issue. Active euthanasia is allowing an easy, short, and painless death for someone who is suffering. Passive euthanasia is the denial of an easy death for someone, though they may be suffering. The moral issue here depends on killing – active euthanasia, vs. letting die – passive euthanasia. I believe that killing is wrong, just as I believe that letting die is wrong. I do, however, strongly consider active euthanasia to be the only exception to that.

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