To understand the ongoing debate about active and passive euthanasia, we must first look into Rachel’s
James Rachels argues for both the use and moral significance of the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Rachels believes since both forms of euthanasia come to the same outcome which results in death, active euthanasia is preferred to passive euthanasia. Rachels considers active euthanasia as a more humane way of ending suffering, because it brings a speedy end to the suffering. “Is there, he asks, any genuine moral difference between drowning a child and merely watching a child drown and doing nothing to save it (586)?” Rachels tries to attempt and show the fact difference between intentionally killing and letting someone die without any help, which also states that active euthanasia is not any different or morally wrong.
Euthanasia is the painless killing, usually by injection, of someone usually done by doctors and is illegal in the United States as well as many other countries around the world. This differs from physician-assisted suicide because in physician-assisted suicide a doctor or physician provides means or knowledge required to commit suicide, but the person has to be the one to kill themselves. Both of these situations are viewed as morally wrong in the eyes of the church and many citizens in the U.S. Euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide, both limit the life of a person based on his or her physical and or emotional health. This process takes away part of a person’s life, shortening God’s plan for that person, and does not allow for miracles to get better. There is no definite way to predict the future but people tend to think that since a person is in pain now, and the person wants to die, nothing can happen that can turn his or her situation
The possible legalization of euthanasia can cause a great disturbance in how people view life and death and the simplicity of how they would treat it. "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple, affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p. 94) As demonstrated, the decision of terminating a person 's life is a very fragile and difficult one, emotionally and mentally. Nevertheless, it’s a choice we can make if it is passive euthanasia being expressed.
Historically, as in ancient Greek and Roman times, euthanasia and physician assisted death (EAS), in all forms, were not only regularly practiced, they were quite common among all classes (Ian Dowbiggin N. pag.). Hippocrates developed The Hippocratic Oath at around 300 B.C. and included the passage that physicians should not perform EAS even when asked. It took until the Christian movement for this to become the preferred method for practicing medicine. Euthanasia and physician assisted death are becoming more accepted in modern times, once again.
Consenting adults who are at the end of their life and experiencing unbearable pain have another option than to just bear with the pain and die, they can request to take part in physician-assisted death if they live in a certain state or country. (Downar) Physician assisted death consists of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia can be separated into to two groups it can be active or passive; the two groups can be split into three more sections: voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. In passive euthanasia as a whole a patient should receive life-supporting therapy and if they don’t it often results in their death. Voluntary passive euthanasia is when a person refuses life-supporting therapy or is withdrawn if they are currently in a therapy session.
Active euthanasia is killing a patient who requests to die. For example, a patient with a terminal illness may wish to end their battle. To fulfill these wishes the physician may administer a lethal injection. Except in special circumstances, it is illegal to deliberately cause the death of another person. I contend that life is a gift from God and he has the ultimate power to decide when to take this privilege away.
An example of active euthanasia was “In 1998- when- Dr. Jack Kevorkian videotaped himself administering a lethal medication to Thomas Youk, a 52-year-old Michigan man with Lou Gehrig’s
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines euthanasia as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Christian Nordqvist states, “Active euthanasia includes life-ending actions conducted by the patient or somebody else.” Active is when the patient decides or has already decided to be medically killed. Nordqvist defines passive as, “a mode of ending life in which a physician is given an option not to prescribe futile treatments for the hopelessly ill patient.”
Euthanasia is usually used to refer to active euthanasia, and in this sense, euthanasia is usually considered to be criminal homicide, but voluntary, passive euthanasia is widely non-criminal. Voluntary Euthanasia is conducted with the consent of the patient while Involuntary Euthanasia is conducted against the will of the patient. Beginning with the philosophical aspects of euthanasia we must first understand the importance of the sanctity of life. Human life is sacred because God made humankind in His own image, and that each individual human
Imagine having to endure so much pain and suffering for a majority of your life that you would just want it all to end. Well, there is a way one can stop their own pain and suffering and it is called euthanasia. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. The act may only be done solely to those diagnosed with terminal illnesses such as cancer, aids, and heart disease. Many people agree with the idea of euthanasia as it can help those who are suffering be stripped of all the pain they are enduring.
Tulloch Gail from Edinburgh University Press said that Euthanasia can be categorized in two respects. First, if patients have requests for medical help injection for themselves, it is called Voluntary Euthanasia and did not a request from patients, it called Involuntary Euthanasia. Second, if the doctor injected into the patient died, it is called Active Euthanasia but if the doctor lets the patient died by themselves, it is called Passive Euthanasia (2005). However, Euthanasia is also illegal in some countries.
There are many forms of euthanasia. Whether it’s active or passive, voluntary or non-voluntary, most of these forms are illegal in almost every country in the world. Passive euthanasia is refusing treatment and allowing illness or injuries kill you, however active euthanasia is what I’m going to talk about today. It generally consists of injecting a lethal chemical composite dose into the bloodstream that is meant to end your life in the most painless way possible. We live in a world that has opposing viewpoints on this subject; there are those who view it as homicide, and others who view it as the most sincere form of human compassion.
INTRODUCTION Euthanasia alludes to the act of deliberately close a life keeping in mind the end goal to assuage torment and enduring. There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient"". Euthanasia is sorted in diverse ways, which incorporate voluntary, non-voluntary, or automatic.
The act of euthanasia, whether active or passive, is heavily obstructed in the medical field. Through medical ethics, the act of passive euthanasia is condoned by withholding treatment and thus, allowing the patient to die. Without any direct contact with the patient, the doctor is not considered as the cause of death. Thus, the medical field views passive euthanasia as of lesser and more permissible value in comparison to active euthanasia. In the statement made by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, they perceive this as contrary to mercy killing, as it is, the cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or his immediate family.
