Active and Passive Euthanasia 2

In this dissertation we will explore active and passive euthanasia, the brouhaha surrounding the two and which one is appropriate and morally sound for modern times. James Rachel has written a very poignant supposition on active and passive euthanasia. Though many disagree with him on the appropriateness of the practice as it relates to humans and what is considered alive. Some believe that one is dead when the brain is dead or in a comatose state.

Conversely, many believe that a person is alive as long as the heart is beating via technical help or not. There are many sides to the controversy of rather or not euthanasia should be administered. There is the question of morality, the question of active versus passive euthanasia and the question of when euthanasia should be properly carried out. None of these questions are without backlash and consequences. There seem to be more loopholes within this issue than there are cut and dry. Yet when you look at the problem on a personal level with the actual individuals involved, some of those loopholes almost disappear…seemingly. God put people on this earth to live and be prosperous-to be fruitful and multiply, as the Bible says. Some believe that when it gets to the point where the quality of person's life gets so dark that they can no longer function in the world without severe medicinal help, then there is no reason to coerce that person to stay alive (please consider the money that it would cost to warehouse this individual-when money could be allocated to helping children).

Euthanasia is therefore necessary and proper for those whose practical life is null and void due to being comatose ,in a vegetative state of being or suffering from terminal illness according to supporters of euthanasia. The brain is the epic center of our functionality as humans. If a person is in unbearable pain and close to death or is in a vegetative state and no longer able to function, their life is by all practical means over. I know that that really sounds harsh but many believe that this is right. After all we were put on this earth as shepherds and watchmen .There is no reason to keep them alive. The only way to end their physical life is by euthanasia. The question is whether to do this by way of active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Many are against active euthanasia because in this case you actually kill the person rather than letting them die. But both methods are used for the same end which is to end someone's life without further pain for the patient as well as for the family. The only choice to make is which one will give the severely infirmed person’s family happy results.

First off, euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminally illness or an incurable condition as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment, according to Merriman Webster. However, the general definition of euthanasia is laden with controversy. The suspension of life sustaining medical treatment and lethally injecting someone is totally different -though the end result may be the same. From an etymological stand point, euthanasia simply means a good death, eu meaning good and thanatos meaning death. But what’s good about death? When you actively take someone life by injecting him/ her with a lethal dose or when you passively let his/her life slip away by not continuing their life-sustaining medical treatment? And which one is morally sound and appropriate for modern times? This is what James Rachel posits in his poignant supposition on active and passive euthanasia. But many disagree. There is obvious significant moral dichotomy between killing and letting die. To kill is not the same as to let die. Therefore, there are significant differences between active and passive euthanasia. Our moral duties differ with regard to them. We are, in general, obliged to refrain from killing each and every one. We do not have a similar obligation to try (or to continue to try) to prevent each and every one from dying. In any case, to be morally obliged to persist in trying to prevent their deaths would be different from being morally obliged to refrain from killing all other people even if we had both obligations. But who wields the moral scepter in what is right? Should a human being be put down like a dog? But what is a person? Is killing a brain dead person really killing? Is killing an unborn fetus killing? Church posits that a life is a life; that life starts with conception. But when does life end? When a person is comatose? When one cannot continue to breathe on his on without intrusive help from the hospital?

Passive euthanasia is often considered to be mercy killing. But what is so merciful about pulling the plug on some helpless person and allowing him to suffer in unbearable pain while his life slowly and slowly slip away or to take action on the consent of infirmed patient’s immediate family and put him out for his misery? But that premise is so debatable. Robert Latimer comes to mind. Although he claimed to have mercifully ended the life of his daughter who suffered from an extreme case of cerebral palsy, he was convicted of murder in the second degree. The courts were obliged to find him guilty as he broke the law by taking the life of another human being quite frankly.

Robert Latimer took it upon himself to decide that his daughter would never lead a full life as if he was God. Tracy Latimer was never given an opportunity for success, as her life was taken arbitrarily. A not guilty verdict would have told people that parents of disabled children can perform voluntary euthanasia on their children. God is the ultimate giver and taker of life. In the United States, euthanasia was voted on for the first time in the state of Washington. Although polls before the vote revealed strong support for it, the ballot was defeated by fifty-four to forty-six percent, and euthanasia remains illegal in North America. In addition to violating civil law, euthanasia also contradicts the laws of many religions and subcultures of the world. It is God who controls if one should live or die-not man. Man will arbitrarily take this pejorative if euthanasia is permitted. It is stated in the Ten Commandments, “Do not commit murder". Murder can take many nuances, one of which is suicide, the taking of one's own life. This is forbidden in the Christian religion. A powerful adage comes to mind, “human life is not merely the possession of the one who bears it. It is an inherited gift, as such, has meaning not only for oneself but for those who bestowed it, those who have shared it and those who will follow". So who condones man taking life is ever-so precious. In our modern times we have a tendency to do what is right for the time in history because truly every euthanasia case is not the same.

Though Rachel makes some very poignant points, what is best for a person in a vegetative state will continue to be debated. Should we look to other countries in how they deal with euthanasia? Should an infirmed human being in a vegetative coma be put down like a sick dog? Is this right? Should man play God and decide who lives or die? Man is not the giver of life-should he take it away? But man was given dominion over every fowl and living creature on earth. Man judge man every day and in some cases sentence man to death in our criminal court systems. Man knows and understands man we all are familiar with each other; we all go through many similar vicissitudes of life.

In conclusion, there may be many impassioned questions raise when the topic of euthanasia is broached. The controversy of what is right and best is inexhaustible. Many countries have their own views and have practiced euthanasia in many forms. Some have taken it upon their selves to administer their form of as “mercy killing”. Keep in mind that euthanasia means “a good death”. So what is “a good death”? I know… The quagmire remains.

Bibliography
Harris, NM. (Oct 2001). "The euthanasia debate.” J R Army Med Corps 147 (3): 367–70. Hope, Tony (2004). Medical Ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 10. Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierick K (April 2006). "Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis". J Med Ethics 32 (4): 240–5.
Philippe Letellier, chapter: History and definition of a Word, in Euthanasia: Ethical and human aspects By Council of Europe
Francis Bacon: the major works By Francis Bacon, Brian Vickers pp. 630. Kohl, Marvin (1974). The Morality of Killing. New York: Humanities Press. p. 94.,
Beauchamp, Tom L.; Davidson, Arnold I. (1979). "The Definition of Euthanasia". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 4 (3): 294–312.