Euthanasia: Philosophy and the Law - Case Study Example

October 18th Euthanasia Euthanasia can be defined as the bringing about the death of a being for humane reasons, or it is the killing of a person with the intent of ending his or her suffering. There are two main types of euthanasia, and these are passive euthanasia, which is legal in the United States, and active euthanasia, which is considered illegal but it is still practiced by some physicians. Active euthanasia is undertaken on an individual when his or her doctors and family members make the decision to actively kill to end the agony suffered by this 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 are morally equivalent at that time and it is a fact that active euthanasia may actually be better than passive euthanasia. He says that once the choicehas 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 severe babies with severe Down’s syndrome who aregiven birth to with obstructions in the intestines. He states that sometimes in such cases, the babies are allowed to die even though if this matter were considered deeply, 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 who has an intestinal obstruction, the baby is allowed to die because of the Down’s 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 it is this 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 this by stating that active euthanasia is based on a person’s decision to intentionally kill a patient so that the patient’s suffering can be brought to an end. This is very different from passive euthanasia where 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, it would therefore 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 is where 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. Not all the features that are morally relevant and are held to be 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. It is my opinion that euthanasia itself involves the simple killing of a patient who is suffering from an untreatableor excruciating disease or has gone into an irreversible coma. One would say that the type of euthanasia being applied at the time has only one aim, and that is to end the suffering which a patient in going through due to his disease.Whether the method being used is active or passive does not matter because the result shall remain the same; 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 type of euthanasia is applied when putting a patient out of his or her misery.Consequently, there is really no morally pertinent difference between active and passive killing and this leads us back to Rachels’ argument. I suggest that the argument made by Rachels and the conclusions he has come up with are true; that active and passive euthanasia are not that different due to the fact that they are both means to the same end. In conclusion, I find that the views of Rachels and Jake are not as different as one would at first be tempted to think. In fact, some of their ideas come so close together, 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 am of 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 his or her physicians have already determined that the illness, which they have, 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. Both active and passive euthanasia end with the same result (death) and it would be wrong for all parties involved not to allow it to come sooner rather than later. Therefore, I believe that the best thing to do would be to allow patients themselves, their families, or their physicians to decide what the best thing to do is under the situations named above and that the government and courts should have nothing to do with it. Works Cited Dixon, Nicholas. "On the Difference between Physician-Assisted Suicide and Active Euthanasia."The Hastings Center report 28.5 (1998): 25-9. Javier, Francisco. "Euthanasia, Philosophy, and the Law: A Jurists View from Madrid." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 18.3 (2009): 262-9 Pietsch, Chelsea. "Mercy in the Context of Euthanasia."Issues 2009: 8-10. Read More