The Pros And Cons Of 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.

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.

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-

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

James Rachels arguments for supporting the active euthanasia include that the active is more humane than passive because the patient is not suffering for as long of a time. Rachels says that their is little distinction between "letting one die" and "killing one"in his point of view because either way a patient will eventually pass away either way. (Anthology, 248-251) He believes the the Conventional Doctrine on this issue is the statement made on December 4, 1973 by the House of Delegated of American Medical Association. It says that "the intention of termination of life of a once human by another-mercy killing - is contrary to that of medical professional standards. (Anthology, pg 248). This goes against the "Hippocratic Oath" that all physicians must take before

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

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.

In his article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” James Nichols criticizes the American Medical Association for forbidding “active” euthanasia, in which a patient is killed quickly and painlessly by lethal injection, while allowing “passive” euthanasia, in which a patient dies due to withheld treatment. He makes three objections to the American Medical Association policy; 1) “passive” euthanasia can result in needless, extended suffering, 2) AMA moral considerations are irrelevant and 3) distinctions between killing and letting die vary from case to case. Thus, based on Nichols’ objections, he believes that the American Medical Association is morally wrong for allowing “passive” (and denouncing “active”) euthanasia within its code of medical ethics.

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.

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.

The controversy of a doctor assisting their patient who is already dying, end their life sooner to save them from continuous unnecessary pain and agony has been the topic of controversy for years. The practice of euthanasia is in my opinion a mercy and should not be banned because in reality it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. You could say it hurts the patient but then again that patient is already in tremendous pain or in an incapacitated state of no recovery, as in paralyzed or brain damage etc., so in reality it would actually help them by assisting ending their pain by assisted suicide. A doctors job is also always help their patients and the practice of assisted suicide in many ways is actually helping the person. However there has and probably always will be people who do not agree with the idea of a dying person end their life for sooner than nature had intended. This demographic would suggest that by dying by your own hand or assisted by a physician for medical reasons is still considered plain suicide. And for the religious people it is a sin by their beliefs. The people could also argue that it is not a person’s right to make that decision.

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.

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

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?

Euthanasia is a huge controversial topic which raises many questions, the main one being; “Is euthanasia morally justifiable?” The Introducing Ethics textbook gives the definition for euthanasia: “Greek for happy (eu) death (thanatos). Euthanasia is the intentional killing of another from a motivation to relieve suffering, etc.” (668). There are two sides to the ethical issue. Active euthanasia is allowing an easy, short, and painless death for someone who is suffering. Passive euthanasia is the denial of an easy death for someone, though they may be suffering. The moral issue here depends on killing – active euthanasia, vs. letting die – passive euthanasia. I believe that killing is wrong, just as I believe that letting die is wrong. I do, however, strongly consider active euthanasia to be the only exception to that.