Euthanasia: moral or not - Essay Example

But as the years past, medical ethics have been refined and the definition of the word "harm" has consequently changed. There are actually two kinds of euthanasia - Passive and Active. Passive euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death, as when doctors refrain from using an artificial respirator to keep alive a terminally ill patient, while Active euthanasia involves painlessly putting individuals to death for merciful reasons, as when a doctor administers a lethal dose of medication to a patient (Beauchamp 1).

The right of patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment has become controversial even before the 1970s. Those who are in favor of euthanasia maintain that in certain cases relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary objective of health-care providers (Beauchamp 1). They argue that society has the obligation to acknowledge the rights of patients and to respect the decisions of those who elect euthanasia. When arguing on behalf of legalizing active euthanasia, proponents emphasize circumstances in which a condition has become overwhelmingly burdensome for a patient, pain management for the patient is inadequate, and only a physician seems capable of bringing relief (Beauchamp 1).

Furthermore, euthanasia, active or passive, would also relieve the family from physical, emotional and financial burden. It is not about greediness or the unwillingness of family members to prolong the life of their loved-ones, but it is a question of accepting the fact that if it's your time to die, why go against the current and drain yourself of everything you have No one is certain for how long the patient will stay under a life-support system and in as much as one would want to continue a life of a loved one, present circumstances and financial standing would dictate that it is no longer helpful and healthful.

Various court cases have resulted to the universal acknowledgment of euthanasia even among conservative bioethicists. Thecontroversyoveractive euthanasia remains intense. People from religious groups and many members of the legal and medical professions are the opponents of euthanasia. Those who are not in favor of voluntary active euthanasia emphasize that health-care providers have professional obligations that prohibit killing (Beauchamp 1). They maintain that active euthanasia is inconsistent with the roles of nursing, caregiving, and healing.

Moreover, they also argue that permitting physicians to engage in active euthanasia creates intolerable risks of abuse and misuse of the power over life and death. They acknowledge that particular instances of active euthanasia may sometimes be morally justified. However, sanctioning the practice of killing would, on balance, causes more harm than benefit (Beauchamp 1). As far a euthanasia and moral ethics is concerned, Philosophershaveattempted to determine goodness in conduct according to two chief principles, and have considered certain types of conduct either good in themselves or good because they conform to a particular moral standard (Ethics, Microsoft Encarta 1).

The former implies a final value, or summum bonum, which is desirable in itself and not merely as a means to an end (Ethics, Microsoft Encarta 1). In the history of ethics there are three principal standards of conduct, each of which has been proposed as the highest good: happiness or pleasure; duty, virtue, or obligation; and perfection, the