Active and passive euthanasia - Essay Example

Active and Passive Euthanasia For a long time, euthanasia is considered one of the most controversial problems in medical practice. During many years of debate euthanasia has heated discussions in the society and medical practice unveiling ethical and philosophical dilemma of easy death in the case of incurable and painful diseases. Still, there is no right or wrong opinion about active and passive euthanasia because much depends upon the conditions and causes which frce people to look for this problem-solving. Thesis Following Rachel, there is a no great difference between active and passive euthanasia if the actions of a doctor: "designed to kill the patient", although patients should have a right to die. The question of active and passive euthanasia is based on ethical and moral dilemma. Rachel underlines that every specific case should be discussed separately in accordance with the circumstances and patients' medical conditions. It is unethical to use people as a mean but it's more unethical to deprive them of a chance to avoid sufferings, because of speculative ethical arguments esist6ing in modern medical practice. Rachel states: "The important difference between active and passive euthanasia is that, in passive euthanasia, the doctor does not do anything to bring about the patient's death" (248) In favr of active euthanasia, the author illustrates the cases of terminally ill patients. The only question is when they will die. There are cases, when patients remain in a "persistent vegetative state" and will never alive. Active euthanasia can be used as the nly pssible tool to relieve sufferings and pain. In this situatin, the problem is that it is impossible to develop the ethical and moral law which will be suitable for all the cases and can be applied in all situations. It is important to note that it is more unethical to allw relatives to suffer with mortally ill hopeless members of the family. For instance, in some cases of terminal cancer palliative care is the only possible way to prevent sufferings of patients. Ethics refers to the first and most obvious category of values, but in time it might come to be seen as merely a special case of a more general concern. Individuals' illnesses are a fusion of biological processes and biographical experiences; this is true to some extent of all illnesses, but is especially true of chronic illnesses. Following Rachel: "active euthanasia is condemned not merely as illegal but as 'contrary to that for which the medical profession stands' whereas passive euthanasia is approved" (p. 248). The treatment of chrnic illnesses in particular requires a fusion of biolgical understanding. In this case, "Letting someone die" is certainly different, in some respects, from other types of action- mainly in that it is a kind of action that one may perform by way of not performing certain other actions" (p. 248). In spite of the fact that only God can decides when the life should end, many seriously ill patients want to stop suffering and pass away without pain. Although, Rachel compares active euthanasia with the killing of people, but many people kill themselves in order to avid pain. The concept of active euthanasia cntradicts with moral norms and ethical practice of a doctor who should relief pain. Also, Rachel argues that "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" (p. 247). At one time or another in their lives, most people reflect on their relationship to a higher order of existence, whether one perceives it as an eternal force, the universe around, a defined spiritual entity, or a concept that answers to a basic human need for a sense of order behind the turbulent appearance of everyday life. Taking into account the cases under discussion, it is possible to say that Rachel's argument has many limitations, because people are entitled to the control over their own bodies. But they do not take into account unethical behavior. For instance, "the term "coma" refers to a condition in which the eyes are closed, the person cannot be aroused, and there is no sleep/wake cycle. The main argument against active euthanasia is that patients in these conditions cannot decide there the want to live or die, and this decision is accepted by a physician or their relatives. In sum, it is a return to the more basic question of why human life is valuable or why it is wrong to take human life. The patients in this state cannot express their wishes for continuation or termination of life. On the one hand, it is unethical to force patients to suffer, but it is more unethical to deprive them a chance to survive because of speculative ethical arguments created by a group of people. If the harm is the same and the victim is the same, and the victim is no less innocent, then surely the deed is just as wrong. The main problem is that contemporary practice with fatally ill patient has sometimes led to the prosecution of the medical staff involved, although a line of jurisprudence has emerged according to which it may be permissible to treat some patients for dying, rather than to intervene to keep them alive. On the other hand, this way can be used by physicians and relatives to "kill" patients. Also, some patients are depressed and not able to evaluate their decision to die. Two cases under analysis show that a 'doctor or medical staff' is responsible for the decision. If it is possible to save five people letting one to die, it will be morally right to prohibit active in favor of passive euthanasia. The problem is that it is impossible to accept the law and develop a single ethical rule suitable for all the cases. Every specific case should be discussed separately in accordance with the circumstances and patients' health conditions. In general, it should be the duty of physicians to help patients to avoid sufferings even if death is the only case, and patients are willing to use euthanasia. Most of people who want to die are worth living but unable to cope with psychological problems and disorders caused by their illnesses. In sum, how a society and medial staff respond in the face of legal rules capabilities will be a moral guidepost indicating how society should devise and implement health care reform. Following Rachel, there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia, but it should be morally right to let a patient to die as the only possible way to relief pain. Taking into account medical ethics, the task of a doctor is to relief sufferings, and if death is the only way to avoid pain, active euthanasia should introduced into practice. This might extend the duty of confidence not only to the health care professionals primarily concerned, but also to laboratories and other paramedicals involved in the analytical process. Patients may have a concomitant duty to their doctors in certain circumstances. And the way people think about euthanasia will affect other ideas about relatedness between human beings. Taking into account moral explanation, a man is not strong enough to resist the feeling of fear. Instead, the absence of medical support is closely connected with low morals and fear of medical staff to help ill patients. In this case, active euthanasia becomes morally wrong and unacceptable in medical practice. It means that inappropriate decision or wrong diagnosis can result in the death of "innocent" people. Patients should have the right to decide what kind of death they prefer. The way in which the choices that assisted conception affords are formulated, will affect thinking about euthanasia in general. Active euthanasia can help patients to avoid pain, it will help them to avoid suicide (which is also morally wrong), and secondly it will free their family from enormous psychological burden. All in all, patients should have the right to choose the death if their conditions are painful and they suffer from terminal diseases. It is unethical to kill people but its more unethical to deprive them of a chance to pass away with dignity. Society has entered new era of freedom of rights and choice, so it should review and revalue moral norms and ethics applied to medical practice, but it does not mean assisted suicides and violation of universal virtues of life and human existence. References 1. Rachel, J. Active and Passive Euthanasia. pp. 235-248. Read More