Recall that passive euthanasia is simply terminated whatever is keeping the individual from death, whether that be medicine or a machine. As described by the first principle, the single, solitary act of physically flipping a switch, or turning off life support, independently, in itself, is not an action that would be morally wrong. In this scenario, it is the illness or injury that is taking the life of the patient, rather than the physician. By doing this, this permits natural death to take its course, but, to the surprise of many, allows the opportunity for miracles. By removing the life support, the intention of the individual who is preforming this act is to provide peace, or good, to the patient. This fulfills the second requirement. Still two of four requirements still remain. This intended good can be achieved by no other means, and the bad, allowing someone to die, is not disproportionately large. This information meets both the third and fourth requirement. In sharp contrast, active euthanasia, passes all but one requirement of the DDE, hence failing the entire test. Recall that active euthanasia, commonly is presented in the form of assisted suicide, usually performed via drug overdose. The act of giving an over dosage causes the death of the individual. This act independently is a morally wrong action, …show more content…
Also in the Netherlands, one physician admitted to presiding over the killing of four babies in three years, by means of a lethal dosed intravenous drip of morphine and midazol: a sedative (Snhneider). One nurse writes, “It has gotten so bad in Holland that people have in their wallets, little cards that say, “ Do not euthanize without my permission” (Euthanasia). Once again, despite regulations and that are properly in place, total control is almost impossible to