The Argument Of Active And Passive 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.

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

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.

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

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.

In James Rachel’s article Active and Passive Euthanasia she discusses the difference killing someone and letting someone die. Active Euthanasia is the act of killing someone for any reason. For example, if someone is in critical care and you give him or her a lethal injection to relive his or her suffering that is active euthanasia. On the contrary, if you let someone die from their illness and do not try and save them then that is passive euthanasia. In the second half of the article the author discusses the question whether or not killing someone is more morally wrong then letting someone die. She uses the example of a baby playing in a bathtub and if the baby was to die then the father would get a great reward. In one case the father goes and drowns the baby while in the other case the baby slips and the father watches the baby drown. The case the author makes is that if killing someone is worse then letting them die, the second scenario should hold more weight in court then the first. The issue is watching the baby die is just as worse as drowning him.

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels argues that, morally, active and passive euthanasia are the same. Rachels’ strongest argument for this claim is that killing is not worse then letting one die. Since active euthanasia is killing and passive euthanasia is letting one die, morally active and passive euthanasia are the same (Rachels, 1997). I intend to argue that this argument fails because factors such as intent and cause of death play a role in passive and active euthanasia and when these factors are present it can be said that active and passive euthanasia are not the same and in fact active euthanasia is morally worse then passive euthanasia.

The counter arguments to active euthanasia include: all playing God is wrong, killing is always worse than letting someone die, the slippery slope argument, and all destroying of Gods property is wrong. The argument that all playing of God is wrong is not a very strong argument. There are a lot of counter examples one includes capital punishment. Capital punishment is the killing of a person for doing a serious crime. If all acts of playing God are wrong then why is it okay for people the kill a person with the death penalty? The majority of states in America still has the death penalty and still argues that all playing of God is wrong. If all playing of God is wrong, then how come it is okay is some instances but not in others. Another counter

The main question that raises a concern of the public is a controversy of the patient’s ability to take his own life away. This action is a voluntary active euthanasia that is very close to killing or suicide, according to one of the viewpoints. Nonetheless, the voluntary passive euthanasia

I never have thought about euthanasia in such depth until this assignment. It isn’t something completely new to me because I have heard about it, it happens everywhere, even if you or I don’t see it. But, I never gathered my thoughts about such a serious topic. Reading such opinions from these authors made me find out more about this topic but I cannot say I have came to a clear and set decision or opinion about euthanasia. As James Rachels states, “I can understand why some people are opposed to all euthanasia, and insist that such infants must be allowed to live. [But] I think I can also understand why other people favor destroying these babies quickly and painlessly” (Rachels 155).

Given that there are those who suffer from illness are in great pain and death is the only option to relieve it, how can it be immoral to help them? How can it be immoral to help someone scientifically knowing that there is no way for them to get better, knowing each day they are in even more pain, it would not be immoral to help them relieve the pain by ending their life. Referring to animals, most people who see an animal suffering and know for a fact that the animal would no longer survive, humanely choose to end the animal's life. To people, killing an animal is much less value than killing a human being. However, it is still the same concept of ending one’s life by killing them with a lethal

In 1Corinthians 15:54 and 2Co 5:1 it says that death has been absorbed by the victory. This is making reference to the dignity of the dying person. The Church, by defending the sacred character of life in the moribund, does not obey any form of ending physical life. On the contrary, we researchers understand that the Church is teaching to respect the true dignity of a person, who is a creature of God, and is helping to accept serenely the death when the physical forces can no longer be sustained. In a Research about euthanasia described by doctors and pastors, Risto (2013), a Pastor was interviewed on how he viewed euthanasia, his response was, “I accept active euthanasia … Nobody owns us, and because we can always commit suicide we should, in my opinion, also have the opportunity to die through euthanasia.” This is an example that shows that not all people who believe in God, believe in forbidding someone in pain to die in peace. In the same research (Risto, 2013), a pediatrician said that if the patient is

Most moral codes state that killing another human being is morally wrong. I would agree that to kill another human being in the heat of anger, for material gain or in the event of committing a crime would be morally wrong. But I feel that our moral codes are lacking in certain areas and do not take into account some situations where killing another human being would be morally acceptable. This type of killing would be to end the person’s suffering only. These cases the killing would be called active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia “taking a direct action to kill someone, to carry out a “mercy killing”. (Vaughn, 2010) “Passive Euthanasia is

Euthanasia, with a Greek origin meaning “good death” or “easy death,” has been a controversial topic for a fairly long time. In more lexical terms, euthanasia is known as the act of ending a life due to an incurable disease or a suffering that one should not bear. In this paper, I will be providing an in depth look of what passive and active euthanasia is. The lexical distinction between passive and euthanasia is one actively killing another, and the other being the act of allowing one to die. I will also be elaborately declaring how there is not a moral distinction between the two by relating to the views of James Rachels’ Active and Passive Euthanasia. After epitomizing Rachels’ argument, I will finally assess his final argument that we should change our policies around euthanasia and present many claims of why we should not do this.

The conventional doctrine endorsed by the American Medical Association states that passive euthanasia (letting die) is morally permissible. However, active euthanasia (assisting patients die) is never morally permissible because it’s like killing the patient instead of letting the patient die naturally. Active euthanasia is taking a direct action to kill a patient and on the other hand, passive euthanasia is withholding treatments to let the patient die (letting die). Rachels (1975) disagrees with the American Medical Association because he supports active euthanasia contrary to the position of this body. According to Rachels, active euthanasia reduces the pain of the patients who would otherwise die even without the injection. In other words, there are no significant differences between letting a person die and killing a person, who will still perish in the end. Rachels refutes the claim of the American Medical Association that does not support intentional termination of the life of the patient or what is referred to as mercy killing. In her view, doctors only uphold their legal mandate by not engaging in the mercy killing and ignoring their moral duty to ensure the patient die without pain. The doctors only seek to avoid legal responsibility by letting the patient die instead of killing the patient. Alternatively, passive euthanasia allows the patient to die naturally while the active one requires the doctor to take action to terminate the life of the patient. As such, by