Passive Euthanasia

But doctors should not be involved in directly causing death. This brings us to the controversial point of active and passive euthanasia. Some people think there is no real difference between the two, since stopping a treatment and administering one are both deliberate acts. But there is a moral difference between letting a person die peacefully and deliberately killing the person. Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep alive.

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.

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

When a patient is terminally ill or is experiencing extreme pain, often Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide can both be plausible options to end any suffering. Euthanasia is currently legalized in seven countries and parts of the United States (New Health Guide). This number is not likely to increase soon because of the high controversy, which is due to the very serious topic of this matter: a person 's life. The general process of these medical methods is usually understood as a doctor somehow deliberately causing the death of a patient or helping with their suicide. Many believe that it is unethical and violates laws, oaths, and more. Though people believe this, it is truly unethical to not give a person a choice in the manner in which they will perish.

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-

Euthanasia, formally known as mercy killing, is the act of intentionally causing the painless death of a sick person, rather than allowing that person to die naturally. In terms of a physician's actions, it can be passive in that a physician plays no direct role in the death of the person or it can be active in that the physician does something directly to cause the death (Yount, 2002). Euthanasia may also be formed into three types of act, which are voluntary, involuntary, and nonvoluntary. Voluntary involves killing the patient at his or her request. Involuntary occurs when the patient does not give consent, or refuses. Nonvoluntary is where the patient is not able to make the decision about their medical treatment so it is up to a third

Father Frank Pavone states on his article “Brief Reflections on Euthanasia” that “No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put that person to death, we have a duty to care for and preserve life” along with “There are groups in our country pushing for the right to use lethal injections on the seriously ill, or to remove their food and water. We must oppose such moral nonsense with all our strength.” Euthanasia is a fine see-saw and the people who are pro life believe that if we start to allow euthanasia on the ill, eventually it will become an easy way out to just about anyone who is having any sort of hardship in their life. The other topic of argument is the religious aspect of this issue. In “Brief Reflections” it also states that “Our society has created a world in which it is always possible and always considered right to take the easy way out of problems, suffering and death. That way is completely against the example Jesus set for us; it is against Christian values. We, as Christians, must form a counter-culture. We do not pray for an easy, free or painless life and death. Rather we should pray for strength to sustain and understand the life God gave us to live.” People believe that euthanasia is messing with “god’s plan for us” because he “decides” when it is time for us to die. Now, in the case that someone is in intolerable pain, it is our duty to

We all heard of the term of euthanizing an animal to end the animals suffering and pain which is a merciful killing. If euthanizing an animal is moral and legal how does that differ from euthanizing a patient that is suffering as well? The reason we decide to euthanize our pets is not because we don’t love them anymore, but we want them to end their pain and suffering. Furthermore, pets become part of the family and choosing to euthanize them is not an easy decision, but in regards to the pet’s best interest, euthanizing them will be more beneficial. The owner will not have to see their beloved pet suffering and have peace in mind that their pet is not

There are a few different forms of physician-assisted death, such as active, passive, and assisted suicide. To some people they may mean the same thing but in reality, they are quite different. Active euthanasia is when a physician physically injects the patient with a drug that ends their live or in some way is the direct result of the patient’s death. Passive euthanasia is the result of something taken away from the patient that results in their death, such as removing a breathing tube or stopping treatment. Physician assisted suicide is the result of lethal medication given to the patient for them to take on their own time when they are ready to end their life. Some people see these different forms as being the same while others see them as being different. There are four ethical principles that become involved in conflict with these forms of euthanasia. These principles are beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice, which act against each other sometimes in the cases of euthanasia. Beneficence is the duty of the physician to have the welfare of the patient is their first concern. This principle sometime goes against euthanasia because of the fact the physicians are stopping treatment, which results in the death of the patient. Many argue this act is the result of not thinking of the patient’s welfare. Another principle is autonomy, according to Steve Pantilat, “Autonomous individuals act intentionally, with understanding, and without controlling influences”

Kuhse actively discusses the difference between active and passive death, and how some people have thought of death to be evil. She refutes Nesbitt’s assumption that death is always evil by correlating his assumption to clinical practice. In a clinical setting, this view has already been rejected by patients and doctors because not always do people believe life is always good and will. Kuhse brings about the topic of passive euthanasia when discussing the quality of life of terminally ill patients. Kuhse states, “Terminally or incurably ill patients standardly refuse life-sustaining treatment, and doctors allow these patients to die, for the patients’ good (Kuhse 299). This means that the patients are making the decision that they would rather

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

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.

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.

According to Rachels, “It is [incorrect] to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he does do one thing that is very important: he lets the patient die. "Letting someone die" is certainly different, in some respects, from other types of action - mainly in that it is a kind of action that one may perform by way of not performing certain other actions. (Rachels, 79)” Inaction in itself is still an action. A person makes a decision to respond or not to respond. The decision is the act. The central question for debate is do we have a right as a nation to evaluate another person’s level of suffering?

Active euthanasia is commonly confused with physician assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is performed “when a physician, at a rational request of an adequately informed, competent patient who plans to commit suicide, knowingly provides that patient with the medical means…and the patient uses those means to commit suicide” (Gert). Through this method, a physician does not “actively” kill the person, but simply provides the person with the means to end their own life. For example, a doctor gives a patient an injection of a morphine that is sufficient to cause their death, but does not administer it. In the other hand, a physician “actively” kills a patient to end his or her suffering in active euthanasia. For instance, a physician either overdoses the patient with pain-killers or sleeping pills. Although they are done differently, they both have the same purpose of ending a person’s suffering and pain.