Physician Assisted Suicide And Active Euthanasia

A topic that is heavily debated is something called euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of bringing about a person’s death with the intention of relieving pain and suffering (Buckles, 2018). There are two different kinds of euthanasia, passive and active (Buckles, 2018). Passive euthanasia is the action of ending a life-preserving treatment in order to bring about the death of a patient (Buckles, 2018). Active euthanasia is the action of bringing about the death of the patient by administering a lethal dose of a drug or medicine (Buckles, 2018). The most commonly held belief in relation to moral standing for euthanasia is that killing, active euthanasia, is always worse than letting die, passive euthanasia (Buckles, 2018). However, in some circumstances,

Going even further, I wish to argue that killing can even be morally correct over letting someone die. If someone requests to die, then we’re respecting their wishes and relieving any pain and suffering; So by killing someone in a situation like that isn’t morally wrong according to the definition of euthanasia. According to Utilitarian values, killing is not always worse than letting die, it depends on a case by case basis, and there are instances where killing is more morally correct. In order to build the foundation of my argument, I’m going to use Utilitarianism, which states that morally right actions are ones that promote pleasure and morally wrong actions are ones that promote pain (Mill,1861). Euthanasia at its core is backed by utilitarianism, because to euthanize someone is to relieve pain and suffering of that person, which would be morally correct according to Utilitarian values. If there’s an instance where an older man entered a

They might even feel more pain and suffering if their relative were kept alive. They would have to see their relative suffer every day, and the family members would have to sacrifice their time and money to the patient. The patient would either have to burden their family member with the bills or rely on them to help him live his daily life. If the family helped pay for the medical bills, the patient would feel guilty, and would have to sacrifice time to go to the doctors for the prosthetics. The patient most likely wouldn’t be able to use his prosthetic arms to the full extent that he used to use his real arms, so he would be limited in what kinds of jobs that he could work. If that patient had refused to get financial help from his family and live without arms, he would have to live his life completely dependent on other people. Western society is very much rooted in independence and not being able to have independence could cause serious mental health issues in the patient. If the patient had to depend on someone to help him in his daily life, either he would need a family member to help him every day or he would have to hire a caretaker. If he took the caretaker route trying not to burden his family, he would have to find a way to pay the caretaker. The patient would most likely lose their job and any benefits that came with the job and