In his well-known article “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” Rachels denies the seemingly popular viewpoint that passive euthanasia is more morally permissible than active euthanasia. He believes both types of euthanasia should be either allowed or disallowed all together because, “active euthanasia is not [morally] worse than passive euthanasia.”2 My paper will evaluate the soundness of the four paragraphs, from the article, that begins “One reason why….” and ends with “no defense at all.”3 In these paragraphs, he argues that killing is not in itself morally worse than letting die.…
However, it is wrong to prolong the needless suffering of patients who are dying. Therefore, treatment refusal is the right of a competent patient. Rachels provides three arguments in light of active euthanasia being morally acceptable as passive euthanasia, as it would protect patients from unnecessary suffering. He does this first through explaining the humanitarianism that justifies both active and passive euthanasia when a patient prefers active mode.…
request of suicide, and euthanasia. She also admitted that physicians must honor a patient rescue to be free of unwanted life sustaining treatment. I'm not agree with her argument because euthanasia forms part of passive euthanasia. Susan M Wolf contradicts herself in this part when she said that physician must no accede to the request of suicide and euthanasia. Then she said that physicians must honor patient rescue to be free of unwanted life sustaining treatment which is the passive euthanasia.…
In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels challenges the conventional doctrine’s arguments against active euthanasia and ultimately proposes that active euthanasia should be permissible. He first discusses the justification in favor of passive euthanasia and explains how it can be extended to include active euthanasia. Under the AMA, the CDE is supported as a means to alleviate suffering. Rachels points out that active euthanasia also has the potential to alleviate suffering and therefore should be permissible. He further criticizes passive euthanasia stating that it may prolong the amount of time before death, therefore needlessly prolonging the amount of time a patient shall suffer (Rachels, 1975).…
The population of people can be either mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually suffering into pain. We all have different perspectives we can choose to suffer death or have assisted-suicide likewise, snapping your fingers at the instant death. I believe that we do need to euthanasia. I will set reasons why we can be for and against euthanasia. In the hope that, euthanasia it’s needed and follow to have less painful moments.…
Rachels takes the justification for “letting a patient die” as a way to reduce the patient’s suffering and turns it into one that proves that active euthanasia is not any worse than passive…
“Any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the word or to decrease the amount of misery. Conversely, an action or social policy is morally wrong if it serves to decrease happiness or to increase misery.” (RSL/Rachels, EL 247) The utilitarian argument is used to justify and condemn many policies, however, I believe that the argument is especially fitting when it comes to the matter of active euthanasia. Mercy, an action that serves to decrease the overall misery in the world, is an unquestionable sign of kindness and correctness. Mercy comes in many forms and is rarely frowned upon. Following this reasoning, why is mercy that takes the form of ending a suffering patient’s life considered…
The argument that has sent the world into a tailspin is whether or not people suffering from terminal or excruciatingly painful illness have the right to take their own lives by way of physician-assisted suicide. Proponents contend that what one does with one 's life is of no consequence to anyone else -- that it is humane to allow someone to be relieved of constant – if not unbearable – discomfort. On the other hand, critics claim that the act of euthanasia is nothing more than a fabricated form of murder. Indeed, both sides have pertinent points when it comes to understanding and assessing the conflict, but euthanasia supporters have a significantly stronger argument when considering the bigger picture. Clearly, physician-assisted suicide is not only the right thing to do for someone seeking such a decision, but it is ethical and humane for a physician to abide by the patient 's wish.…
The term euthanasia originated from the Greek word for "good death." It is the act or practice of ending the life of a person either by lethal injection or the deferment of medical treatment (Munson, 2012, p. 578). Many view euthanasia as simply bringing relief by alleviating pain and suffering. Euthanasia has been a long-standing ethical debate for decades in the United States. Active euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and in the United States in the states of Washington, Oregon and Montana (Angell). Several surveys indicate that roughly two thirds of the American public now support physician-assisted suicide, and more than half the doctors in the United States do too (Angell). Active voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia matter because they allow the patient or family to relieve them of pain and suffering, and to die with dignity and respect. In this paper I will argue that it is immoral and unethical to deny a patient the right to die and that active voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia should be a legal practice in the United States.…
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that is spreading throughout the world. Euthanasia has two different forms which are Passive and Active. It is not only controversial weather it should be legal a whole but also controversial if both forms of euthanasia should be legal. Rachels and Williams are two philosophers who give their unique input on what is right and wrong. Williams disagrees with euthanasia while Rachels urges for doctors to agree with euthanasia. For me personally I feel that Euthanasia should be a freedom any rational or previously rational human being should have.…
Debate Resolution: If voluntary euthanasia is legalized in the U.S., it will have primarily positive and acceptable social consequences. Consequently, it should be legal…
Daniel Brock rationalizes his claim that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible with the use of two moral values. According to Brock, the moral values of self-determination and well-being support voluntary active euthanasia. As defined and detailed thoroughly in Brock’s argument on page 11 of his paper “Voluntary Active Euthanasia”, self-determination is equal to the ability to decide what decisions in and about your life will coincide with your concept of a good life, and well-being is equal to being content with your life. The formal argument that Brock formulates is reliant on these two moral values. The argument is as follows: “1. The values of patient self-determination and well-being support VAE, 2. So there is a good moral…
Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending someone’s life so that any type of suffering and pain will come to an end. It was first seen throughout 5th century B.C. and 1st century B.C. by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Prior to Christianity coming forth, ancient Greece and Rome had a tolerance for assisted-suicide. Few physicians followed the Hippocratic Oath which “prohibited doctors from giving ‘a deadly drug to anybody, not even if asked for,’ or from suggesting such a course of action” (Dowbiggin). During this time there was much support for euthanasia rather than prolonged suffering. This led many physicians to comply with a patient’s request and administer the poisons. Later on between the 12th and 15th century, with the rise…
This essay will discuss the topic of euthanasia which according to the NHS is “the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering.” The arguments from both sides are strong and passionate. I believe that people should have the choice to end their own lives if they are suffering from an incurable pain that will slowly kill them. However, this is where the arguments start “what if the person is in a coma and he or she can’t choose to end it?”, “what if he or she is pressured into it” these are valid arguments and there is no question that when it comes to this topic the waters get muddy so to speak. Personally, I believe that it should be within the rights of a person to end their suffering.…
One of the most hotly debated ethical issue of our time is one of Euthanasia. Euthanasia comes from the Greek words “Eu”, meaning well or easy, and “Thanatos”, meaning death. In modern terms it is the intentional premature termination of another’s life by direct intervention or by withholding care.[1] Within that it can be either voluntary (expressed or implied consent), or involuntary. The two sides of this debate are the rights of an individual to decide when he or she is to die, or the sanctity of life and the states responsibility to protect people.…