In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.
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 the article, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, J. Gay-Williams asserts that euthanasia is both morally impermissible and imprudent. This paper will focus on active-voluntary euthanasia as morally permissible by objecting to some of the arguments made by the author, who defines euthanasia as “intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person. Whether the life is one’s own or that of another…” (Vaughn 278). While Gay-Williams presents four arguments against euthanasia, the second argument, “of self-interest,” argues that euthanasia is imprudent, has short-comings and is thus flawed. In this paper, I will explain Gay-Williams’ argument of Self-Interest, following with concerns to how these arguments do not fully encompass the idea
In this essay, we are going to analyze the main ideas included in “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels to provide a response to the following question: Does James Rachels in “The Morality of Euthanasia” successfully argue that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable?
Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.
I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations,
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises
“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.
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.
Kant’s theory of deontology and Mill’s theory of utilitarianism provide starkly different approaches to assigning moral value to ethical dilemmas, two modern dilemmas being commercial surrogacy and physician-assisted suicide. This essay will expound upon the process of deciding moral value within each ethical theory and then apply this decision process to the two ethical dilemmas. Arguments will be posited in support or in opposition to the proposed ethical dilemmas according to the ethical theories. The discussion will revolve around the theories as proposed by the specific authors mentioned above in their relevant works.
Once the consequentialist discussed his concerns and philosophy about the thought provoking matter, the deontologist stands from the bench, pulls out his wallet, and shares a prized picture of Immanuel Kant. While the consequentialist and virtue ethicist look over the photo, the deontologist begins with, “(I)f I were Immanuel Kant, here is what I would have to say about the topic of euthanasia”, “suicide and asking for euthanasia do not show respect for our own rationality; they do not treat it as an end in itself” (Lacewing, n.d., p.3). The deontologist goes on to communicate about his philosophy, we all have a perfect duty to not kill, not deceive, and keep promises. These are the responsibility of deontology. Therefore, we all must stay
The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong
The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.