Active and Passive Euthanasia: Two Sides of the Same Coin - Essay Example

Active and Passive Euthanasia: Two sides of the same coin Physical pain is the most undesirable experience for a human being. People suffering from severe physical illness and painful treatments find it very difficult to bear with the unending torture of pain that they have to go through. Particularly those patients whose illness is in last stages and where there is no hope of recovery become very depressed and discouraged and may wish to die rather than live with the physical torture and fight with death. ‘Euthanasia’ is the answer to a wish of death by a patient suffering from painful experiences everyday. ‘Euthanasia’ is a word derived from Greek origin which means an easy death (Keown 2002. p10). There are two types of Euthanasia. The first is ‘Active Euthanasia’ and the second is ‘Passive Euthanasia’. One involves taking an action to cause the death and the other involves lack of action to save the patient. However, even though ‘active’ and ‘passive’ euthanasia seems to be different , they are ultimately one and the same. The reason is that, even though the paths are different, the aim is the same. The difference is the matter of time for death and nothing else. So eventually, they boil down to same thing. The most common definition of Euthanasia is ‘the intentional action taken by a doctor to end the patient’s life thinking that the patient is better off dead than alive with his painful physical condition’ (Keown 2002. p10) . Active Euthanasia : Active Euthanasia is an act where someone takes a step to end the life of the person. It has to be noted that in active euthanasia, there is always other person involved apart from the patient who actually performs the act of causing death (McDougall, Gorman and Roberts 2007 p2). The death does not happen naturally but is ‘caused’ by active participation of other person (Tulloch 2006. p55). Passive Euthanasia: Passive euthanasia means avoiding taking actions when the patient is in need of life support instruments. This could mean ceasing to inject food through pipe, taking away the support for respiration through respiratory pipe etc (McDougall, Gorman and Roberts 2007 p2). Passive euthanasia is more stressed on letting the nature take its course and cause the death to the patient rather than causing the death(Tulloch 2006. p55). From the definitions of active and passive euthanasia we can see that the only difference is the matter of taking action to cause the death. Active and passive euthanasia have common aim and so are not really different from each other. Philosopher James Rachels has stated his view that active and passive euthanasia are one and if one is accepted, then other has to be accepted. In his book, ‘The End Of Life: Euthanasia and morality ’ he has described how and why active and passive euthanasia is one and the same. He is right in saying that the two acts are different only in the perception of people around the patient. But if we think from the point of view of a patient, it is one and the same as it ultimately leads to his death (Rachels 1986 p1). Morality and euthanasia: Human being is brought up under strict moral codes. We are taught not to harm others by action or by words. Our religion have impressed the idea of sin and punishment in our mind by constantly telling us that ‘harming others is a sin and if you commit a sin, you will suffer in hell’. So obviously our moral upbringing does not allow us to think that active euthanasia is right. Let us consider an example here. In the first scenario, you go out with a friend for swimming. The swimming pool is deep and you are a good swimmer. However, your friend is not a good swimmer. Your friend, by accident, goes deep into the water. He cries for help but you don’t help him. He eventually dies. The second scenario is that you intentionally pull him into deep water and drown him to death. The second scenario is called murder while the first one is just not helping the person in need. The upbringing of a human being is such that even though both the scenarios lead to death of a human being, what makes you feel guilty is the second scenario as it shows that the ‘action’ was taken to cause the death. This is the same feeling that works in the mind of people when they try to differentiate between active and passive euthanasia. James Rachels has discussed three points as to why active euthanasia is not considered acceptable by people. 1. The active euthanasia can make you equal to murderer. People think that active euthanasia is ‘causing’ a death to a person and so makes it a murder. It equals to intentional killing and hence can make you evil. As discussed in the example of swimming pool scenario, people think that causing a death is evil act and just letting a person is not an evil act. However, Rachels argues that if there is a difference between taking action to kill someone and not taking action to kill someone , then there is surely difference between letting someone die and not letting someone die (Rachels 1986 p10). If causing a death is undesirable then not taking steps to save the patient is also undesirable experience for doctors. It is doctor’s duty to save the life of the patient no matter how critical is his/her condition. No doctor will ever think of letting someone die if it is actually going to save person’s life and make him healthy and fit again. However, euthanasia is a different case altogether. Rachel also argues that if we consider causing a death of a person evil, then it is equally evil to see the person suffering with pain endlessly and not granting his wish of ending the pain by giving him painless and easy death. 2. Morality has strict codes: The philosophers say that humanity demands us not to harm others. This moral duty is more strong than the duty to help or save others. In simple words, what it means is that it is alright if you do not extend the helping hand towards a person in need but in no way is it alright to harm someone(Rachels 1986 p10). If you harm someone you are immoral and are bad person. Now this sort of moral code of conduct, if applied to the aspect of euthanasia, will suggest that it is alright to let someone die (passive euthanasia) however, it is not alright to cause someone to die (active euthanasia). If you practice active euthanasia, you are supporting an evil act The important point to consider when trying to understand active euthanasia is that doctor feels the need of active euthanasia only when he is sure that the patient is better dead than alive. The agony and the endless pain that the patient goes through makes life hell for him. People around him might fight for their feelings of morality, but the one who is suffering only knows that no morality can support the idea of pain and misery the patient is going through . 3. Doctor’s feelings: The third important argument is about what the doctor goes through when he prescribes euthanasia and inject the lethal drugs or prescribes the pills to the patient. A doctor is trained to save lives. In many of the countries doctors are worshipped like God because of their capability to save the lives of people who are in critical and serious physical conditions. However, when he has to take an action to cause a death to a patient, he is bound to feel tremendous guilt and failure. However, if the doctor feels guilty with active euthanasia, then the same feeling should arouse with passive euthanasia also. After all, he is aiming the death of the patient by not providing him the life support system. Rachels says that because someone feels guilty about something does not necessarily mean that it is wrong (Rachels 1986 p12). Human being lives through his body. His body is a means for his existence. But what when the body becomes ill and there are no chances of recovery? Doesn’t a person has a right to die according to his own wish? Yes, he does have a right to die and to die quickly and easily with the help of a doctor rather than dieing a slow, painful and depressive death. Anyone who has lived a life fully, enjoyed different roles in life and now is wishing death to avoid painful suffering, has a right to die with full dignity and positive feelings (Roy 2008). Active euthanasia should be prescribed happily, positively and without a guilty conscious by the doctor. It will help the patient and in fact reduce the agony and the pain of the patient and that is the true duty of the doctor, to reduce the pain of the patient and make him free of the suffering. Ultimately, there is no difference between the active and passive euthanasia. They are the two sides of the same coin. References Keown , J. 2002. Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: an argument against legalization Cambridge University Press. McDougall, J., Gorman, M. and Roberts, C. 2007 Euthanasia: A Reference Handbook ABC-CLIO Rachels, J. 1986. The End of Life Euthanasia and Morality Chapter 7 Available at http://www.jamesrachels.org/Chapter7.pdf [ Accessed 16th May 2009] Roy, M., 2008. Should euthanasia be legalised? ( ( 22 January 2008) Available at http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=129559 [ Accessed 16th May 2009] Tulloch, G. 2006 Euthanasia, choice and death Edinburgh University Press, Read More