Rule Utilitarianism Vs Active Euthanasia

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.

After considering the system of utilitarianism, it is important to take a close look at the roots and depth of euthanasia as it has infiltrated our society. This will include an in-depth look at the overall idea of euthanasia, a history of the laws that have defined euthanasia, a specific case of euthanasia, and how the decision-making system of utilitarianism can be applied to a specific ethical communicative issue within.

The morality of euthanasia from an extreme utilitarian perspective means acting on what’s best for the vast majority based on one’s particular actions. The morality of euthanasia is determining what is considered to be wrong and right in the eyes of someone with a utilitarian perspective.

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels argues that both degrees of euthanasia are morally permissible and the American Medical Association (AMA) policy that supports the conventional doctrine is not sound. Rachels establishes that the conventional doctrine is the belief that, in some cases, passive euthanasia is morally permitted, while active euthanasia, under all circumstances, is

Person A: What is your take on allowing of passive euthanasia and outlawing active euthanasia?

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.

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.

From an ethical framework stand point, utilitarian’s would argue for non-voluntary euthanasia. The Utilitarian ultimately rates whether an action is good or bad based on the outcome. Thus, the end outcome might justify the means for doing an action (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008). For example, as discussed previously above, the cost of end of life treatment is often times extremely expensive, not only for the family but also for the economy. Still, when focusing on not only dollar amounts, but also totaling the numbers in the population afflicted with dementia, “around 1% of the population receives support for dementia” (Sharp, 2012), so therefore the number of loved ones affected would be much higher, leading a utilitarian to choose death of the cognitively impaired individual rather than becoming such a burden. By sacrificing one cognitively impaired individual, there will result in greater overall good in the rest of the population in terms of financial and resources.

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.

The fact that passive euthanasia is already practised can be an argument for voluntary active euthanasia. If it was legalised then it would show consistency. Both would be carried out for the same reason of lessening the amount of pain suffered by the patient. Only the means are different, the intentions are the same.

Therefore, since euthanasia meets the moral standards set by Utilitarianism, it would support the act of euthanasia as a morally sound action.

First of all, it is inevitable that the argument “euthanasia being morally permissible” is relevant to the philosophical theory “Utilitarianism” which generally fixates on increasing happiness and decreasing misery to an

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

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