|
|
|
|
|
Active and Passive Euthanasia
|
|
|
Advocates of euthanasia and their opponents frequently explore the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act of killing; in contrast, passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment, or allowing a person to die. Supporters of euthanasia, generally argue that there is no morally relevant distinction between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ euthanasia, as death is the ultimate goal of both. The manner of death is what they oppose. I intend to explore the moral significance of this distinction and demonstrate that ‘passive’ euthanasia is primarily in correspondence with a patient’s right to refuse treatment, endorsing the moral permissibility of passive euthanasia only in certain circumstances. Death being a consequence of exercising this right is merely convenient to the terminally ill. I will endeavor to illustrate that there seems to be an increasing amount of social approval for our right to refuse life-sustaining treatment specifically to hasten death in certain circumstances. I believe this then opens the door to the moral permissibility of active euthanasia in similar circumstances also. The Oxford dictionary definition of euthanasia states its meaning as ‘a gentle and easy death’. Euthanasia is derived from the Greek language; eu means ‘good’ and thanatos means ‘death’. In order to get to the fundamental meaning of the word, it is necessary to stipulate that any candidate for euthanasia must have a painful and terminal illness. The death must be assisted and must be for the sake only of the person considered. James Rachels questions the moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. He asserts in the case of a terminally ill patient, who dies as a consequence of refusing life-sustaining treatment, killing the patient would not be morally worse. He states, “If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons”. Rachels believes it absurd that it is not morally permissible to administer a lethal injection to relieve the pain and suffering that a patient invariably experiences after the decision has been made to discontinue life- sustaining medical care. One crucial aspect which Rachels fails to consider, is that it is the patients ‘right’ to refuse treatment. This should not be confused with a doctor’s decision to discontinue treatment, as the decision is made solely by the patient for his own ends.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
