Discussing the Moral Acceptability of Euthanasia - Essay Example

October 19th Euthanasia Euthanasia can be defined as the bringing about the death of a being for humane reasons, or as the killing of a person with the intent of ending his or her suffering. There are two main types of euthanasia: passive euthanasia, which is legal in the United States, and active euthanasia, which is considered illegal, but it is still practiced by some physicians. However, active euthanasia is undertaken on an individual only when his or her doctors and family members agree and make the decision to kill actively to end the agony suffered by their loved one. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, lets the suffering person die by withholding the necessary medical care and allowing the disease to kill the person instead of a fellow human being. The American Medical Association embraces the belief that active euthanasia is not acceptable due to the involvement of the intentional ending of a patient’s life by another human being. Many current thinkers have argued for and against this view discussing the moral acceptability of such an action, and some of the most notable arguments come from James Rachels. Rachels states that a strong case can be made against the American Medical Association’s doctrine. His main point is that passive euthanasia is not always preferable to active euthanasia: he states that, in some cases, there is simply no moral disparity linking active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. This is because they both are morally equivalent concerning the ultimate goal; however, it is factual that active euthanasia may be fair compared to passive euthanasia. He says that once the choice has been made not to prolong the patient’s agony, active euthanasia would be preferable because the latter would lead to an unnecessary period of suffering (Dixon 25). His most brilliant example is the instance of the babies with a severe Down’s syndrome who were given birth with obstructions in the intestines. He states that sometimes in such cases the babies are allowed to die even if these matters were considered deeply; thus, we would find compelling moral grounds for preferring active euthanasia to passive euthanasia in the vastly greater degree of suffering involved in letting the baby die. Rachels challenge the doctrine that passive euthanasia is preferable to active euthanasia; he declares that it leads to decisions concerning life and death based on irrelevant grounds as to whether a person’s life should continue or not. He argues that ordinarily an intestinal obstruction can be fixed and is not a life or death matter; but in the case of a baby with Down’s syndrome with an intestinal obstruction, he or she should be allowed to die because of Down syndrome and not the intestinal obstruction. The presence of the intestinal obstruction in the baby becomes irrelevant due to its having Down’s syndrome, and this is the argument which justifies allowing the prolonged suffering of the baby before it dies instead of fixing the intestinal obstruction which would relieve it of the pain. This justifies Rachels’ argument against the American Medical Association’s doctrine that this doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance because they both lead to the same end and the means of getting there is inconsequential (Javier 262). Jake objects to Rachels’ argument and justifies his stance stating that active euthanasia is based on a person’s decision of killing a patient intentionally, and this is meant to bring to the end the patient’s suffering. This is hugely different from passive euthanasia, as in this case a patient is left to die in his or her own time and not given any substance that will make them die. According to Jake, therefore, it would be true to say that there is a clear difference between active and passive euthanasia, and that this difference is based on the morality of the two actions. While passive euthanasia can be considered morally right, active euthanasia is morally wrong because it involves the intentional killing of a patient. On the other hand, passive euthanasia happens when a patient is left to die and no one has a hand in actively participating in this patient’s death. For example, the physician may realize that any further administration of treatment may present little hope of reversing the patient’s dying process, or the use of such extraordinary means may cause excruciating to his patient. He argues that such cases do not involve intentional killing because a physician does not intend for his patient to die although he foresees this as the result. Moreover, not all the features that are morally relevant and are held to be true do constant apply to active and passive euthanasia. In conclusion to his argument, Jake states that Rachels does not give a clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia. If one were to go by Jake’s opinion, it would be said that passive euthanasia is more preferable to active euthanasia because an individual is not involved in the patient’s death. In my opinion, euthanasia involves the straightforward killing of a patient who is suffering from an untreatable, excruciating disease or has gone into an irreversible coma. Consequently, one would concur that irrespective of the method of euthanasia being applied at the time has only one aim - to bring to the end the suffering which a patient is going through due to his disease. Therefore, a question of the method being used, be it active or passive, does not matter because the result shall remain the same – it is the death of the patient. In reply to Jake’s view, it can be said that all the relevant moral factors are held constant no matter what euthanasia method applied when putting a patient out of his or her misery. Consequently, there is certainly no morally pertinent difference between active and passive killing, and this leads us back to Rachels’ argument. Personally, I believe that the argument made by Rachels and the conclusions are true: the active and passive euthanasia are not that different since they are both mean to kill a patient and relieve him or her of the agony. On the other hand, Jake’s objection fails to undermine Rachels’ argument, as he does not conclusively state why active euthanasia is wrong while passive euthanasia is right. Hence, the understanding that one arrives at when considering Jake’s objection is that passive euthanasia is right since it does not involve another person killing a patient, and the patient is allowed to die when his or her time comes instead. Jake does not look at the fact that passive euthanasia is extremely inhumane, and it fails to fulfill the whole case for euthanasia which is the putting of patients with untreatable illnesses out of their suffering. Active euthanasia is more humane because there is a consideration of the fact that the patient is going to die in all case scenarios. Therefore, the death of this patient is brought about much faster than would have happened if they were left to die, and this helps them avoid the pain that would have accompanied their death. In this case, Jake’s objection does nothing to undermine Rachels’ argument, and it may be a means through which this argument can further be strengthened. In conclusion, the views of Rachels and Jake are not that different because some of their ideas are intertwined, and it is hard to distinguish one from another because they both involve the ending of the pain and suffering of a patient. However, there are differences in their argument that we have noted above, namely, their different points of view concerning the interpretation of the American Medical Association’s doctrine on euthanasia. Jake goes along with the AMA belief that active euthanasia is not to be permitted and instead supports the idea that passive euthanasia is permissible. I agree on the opinion that Rachels’ argument is more convincing because it is true that an extremely thin line divides active euthanasia from passive euthanasia, and in fact, the former would be preferable considering that it immediately ends the suffering undergone by a terminally ill patient. In fact, since the patient’s physicians have already determined that the illness which they deal with is terminal, it would be better if the suffering of such people would be ended swiftly because keeping them alive by artificial means or drugs will not save them from their fate. Therefore, both active and passive euthanasia end with the same result (death), and it would be wrong for all parties involved to allow it to come sooner rather than later. Consequentially, it is all the same killing a person or waiting for them to die because of a fatal incidence. Therefore, I believe that the best thing to do would be to allow patients, their families, or their physicians to decide what the best thing to do under the situations named above. The government and courts should have nothing to do with it. Moreover, this would follow utilitarianism principle, bringing the happy medium to the parties involved. Works Cited Dixon, Nicholas. "On the Difference between Physician-Assisted Suicide and Active Euthanasia." The Hastings Center report 28.5 (1998): 25-9. Print. Javier, Francisco. "Euthanasia, Philosophy, and the Law: A Jurist's View from Madrid." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 18.3 (2009): 262-269. Print. Pietsch, Chelsea. "Mercy in the Context of Euthanasia." Issues 86 (2009): 8-10. Print. Read More