Suppose something happens that it was within your power to prevent? If you didn’t have malicious

Imagine if a random guy killed your daughter along with a couple of other girls: you would be furious. What would you want to happen to him? Would you want him to suffer greatly, or even die for what he did? Would you have sympathy for him because he is young? Would you forgive him if he apologized? This guy murdered your beloved daughter that you love with all your life, and you would do anything to stop him and put him to justice. If you turn this situation around, and it was your son who killed the girls, what would you want to happen to your son? Would you want him to suffer the consequences, or would you defend him to the highest point? These situations are

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.

Killing is a form of active euthanasia and letting the patient die is a form of passive euthanasia. Rachel, as a virtue theorist author uses 2 examples of killing and letting die. She also questions why let die babies with impairments such Spina Bifida or Down syndrome withholding treatments instead of kill them. Also, in the article by Rachel, she uses an example of a man that wanted the fortune of his family, but there is a boy who is the first to get it if something happened to the person actually in charge of the fortune. So he intentionally kills the boy so he can have the money. However, the same author uses the same case but this time, she changed to letting the boy die. When the boy is taking his shower, he enters, but the boy falls and hits his head causing him to drown, but the man just stands and watches the boy die. Moreover, both of them are forms of death. With letting die you foreseen the outcome that is death you are intending relieve their pain. With killing you are intending the death. Furthermore what is crueler between

Active versus passive euthanasia are two different, albeit arguably similar, ways in which an individual is helped to die. Passive euthanasia involves withholding life-saving medical treatment or removal from life

Passive Euthanasia, is the withhold, or removal of medical treatment brings about the death of a patient. For example a cancer patient stop chemotherapy. Active Euthanasia is the giving of a lethal treatment that brings about the death of a patient. James Rachels prefers active euthanasia since it's quick and ends the agony and misery of the person. With passive James Rachels, gives us extreme cases of patients and infants. Where they are days away from dying. Seeing them lay there in never ending pain, suffering until the very last minute. With these cases that Rachel's, provide it make us think differently how Active Euthanasia would be best for the patient or baby well being and end their agony. It's not an easy decision to make, but we have to think for the best for the patient.

Within the scope of euthanasia are passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient refuses access to medical care or treatments, as is allowed by their freedom to legally choose whatever treatment they wish to receive or withhold (Stoyles et al 683). However, their decision to withhold from receiving treatments may result in a hastening of their death. Passive euthanasia is legal in the United States (Stoyles et al 683). However active euthanasia is illegal and is often misconstrued as being identical to physician-assisted suicide. Despite similarities, they are different in technical terms. Both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the same intent and end result. However in euthanasia, the doctor is responsible for administering the lethal injection or other agent of death. In physician assisted suicide, the physician prescribes the patient a lethal injection which the patient will themselves administer (Boudreau et al 2). In both cases, the patient consents to the treatment, but only physician-assisted suicide is legal in certain states within the United States.

There are different forms in which suicide and euthanasia can take place. Suicide, for example, can be assisted, while euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia is when a physician will allow nature to take its course and

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.

Utilitarians are generally in favor of some form of euthanasia since it yields more pleasure than keeping the patient alive. Nevertheless, for an act utilitarian, active euthanasia is oftentimes preferred over passive euthanasia. This is due to the fact that active euthanasia oftentimes reduces the amount of suffering quicker whereas passive euthanasia lets the patient die of his or her own disease which might involves more pain.

Assisted suicide must not be confused with euthanasia. There are two forms of euthanasia, passive and active. Active euthanasia is similar to assisted suicide in that it requires lethal substances to cause death in a patient. But, euthanasia differs from assisted suicide through passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia entails the death of a person from the withdrawal of treatments necessary for the continuance of life. In the United States, passive euthanasia is legal.

We are given the right of free will and to act as autonomous, but in exchange for this, we must take responsibilities for our actions. Whether or not there is intent, a person could be still culpable for a crime. Their actions, no matter how minor they may be, may still hold the individual accountable for the contribution to the crime. This concept of the “banality of evil” is the idea that we, as individuals, occupy and share an awkward space with others in which our actions are involved in the commission of a crime that we did not intend to comment. This involvement cannot go unpunished and it is at this point that the court decides how much culpability the individual is responsible for. There are, of course, legal defenses that either reduce

The differentiation of passive and active euthanasia is by the basis of the act and the intent of person and paitent. The act of passive euthansisa is defined as withholding treatment that is keeping the paitent alive, therefore allowing the paitent to die. Whereas, active euthanasia is to take direct measures to end the paitents life.

The main distinction of whether an act of harm was intended or foreseen relies merely on whether the intending harm was done as a means to an end and not just done as an end. This idea doesn’t just account for actions that were done, but also ones that were allowed. When harm is done as an end it is merely a foreseen side effect of an intended action. When harm is foreseen it is often overlooked by defenders of the doctrine of double effect and seems to be more morally permissible than those actions that are

Intuitively, a person is morally responsible for what she has done only if she could have done otherwise. This is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP). For any person and any action, that person is morally responsible for performing or failing to perform that action if and only if she had a genuine alternate possibility open to her at the time. An alternate possibility is simply another option that an agent has at the time that he or she acts. This principle may hold in part because of the Ought Implies Can principle, which states that a subject ought to do something only if she can do that action.1 So, someone ought to refrain from a morally incorrect action only if she has the option, or an alternate possibility, to do so.

In some victimless crimes, motive plays an important part in determining the type of crime and degree of guilt. Assisted suicide, for example, could be a victimless crime if the motive was to end suffering. In such a case, the murder is committed to end suffering for which there is no future end except in death. The person who is murdered has given his or her consent and the motive can be said to be altruistic. In a case where the murderer was motivated by a potential inheritance, the crime does have a victim and is seen in a more serious light.