Voluntary and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia - Book Report/Review Example

Voluntary and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia Euthanasia Euthanasia debate has persistent for a long time whereby based on the current situation there is concrete proof this topic still has a long way to go. Since its establishment, euthanasia has received a number of controversies because whereas some people are in support of the process saying it is a relieve to those patients experiencing severe pain, others oppose it stating decriminalizing the act citing it unacceptable whereby its perpetrators ought to face full force of the law has having instigated murder. Euthanasia is the process where physicians make the decision of ending a patient’s life based on severe pain is experiencing where death is the only appropriate solution (Rachels, 3). Grouping of euthanasia includes voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia involves ending a patient’s life after a mutual agreement between the physician and the patient, non-voluntary occures is when the patient’s life is taken without his consent especially in the case of children (Rachels, 1). Conversely, involuntary euthanasia involves terminating one’s life contrary to his or her wish, which is normally a crime whereby such physicians end up committing murder. Euthanasia is also classified into active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when physicians use lethal means such such as injections to end one’s life whereas passive involves withholding of certain treatments such as antibiotics (Rachels, 1). This study essay will shed more light on active and passive euthanasia. Many people who oppose euthanasia normally claim killing is morally illegal when compared to just letting the person die by oneself. Evaluating based on the two cases they seem to have similar meanings. However, the only difference is that one involves direct killing by using substances such as lethal injection, whereas the other termination of a person’s life its instigation is indirect because by terminating medication to a given patient usually the physician will contribute directly towards the ailing individual’s death (Rachels, 3). According to the conventional doctrine, although both active and passive euthanasia are illegal, the latter is sometimes allowed whereas active euthanasia has always been illegal. Rachels in her study claims AMA policy should declare the doctrine unsound because it supports passive euthanasia, whereas active euthanasia is more human than the latter (Rachels, 1). Hence, the doctrine governing the issue of euthanasia is quire irrelevance. According to Rachels, the doctrine ought to be abolished because of its move to support one type of euthanasia while declaring decriminalizing the other. Active and passive euthanasia are common terms especially in the medical field. Although both of them involve taking a person’s life, active euthanasia is sometimes permissible unlike passive which is forbidden (Rachels, 1). One of the reasons why active euthanasia is preferred compared to passive in the latter patient is not given any drugs intentionally to terminate his or her life (Rachels, 1). Conversely, active appears more of crime because a medical physician usually uses a lethal injection to cause death (Rachels, 1). Although the act of killing seems unacceptable, some situations based on the extent of pain is experiencing usually calls for daring actions. For instance, if a patient’s condition is at the final stages of throat cancer whereby the extent of pain he or she is undergoing is extremely severe. Because final stages of throat cancer are normally irreversible, it is obvious that such patients will eventually die. Therefore, instead of letting them stay in that agonizing pain, active euthanasia is normally the best option though this conclusion entails an agreement between the patient and his or her relatives who calls for its implementation (Rachaels, 2). Another reason is that, whereas active euthanasia which is fast and painless, passive euthanasia can be quite slow because nobody knows when the patient will eventually die after physicians have resulted to administering appropriate drugs to the ailing. One main debate that has been in existence since back in time is whether physicians should apply active or passive euthanasia to patients that are on the brink of death. According to Rachels, the decision whether to use active or passive is all the same thing. Therefore, in reality no method is worse than the other except that one is faster and less painful while the other is painful besides taking a longer period before attaining the intended results. To expound on this statement, Rachels goes ahead and gives two examples linked to options of killing or letting die. The first example is about Smith who drowns his six-year-old cousin in the bathroom because he wants to inherit his uncle’s wealth. The second example is about Jones who just as Smith wants to drown his cousin. He enters the bathroom with the intention of drowning his cousin but just as he steps in the bathroom, the six year-old cousin slips, hits his head and drowns to death (Rachels, 3). The issue about killing or letting die depicts itself clearly, because whereas Smith killed and Jones let die, neither of them did the right thing. According to Rachels, just like Smith and Jones, the choice of using active or passive euthanasia does not have any moral difference and neither is more humane than the other. This is if one physician opts for lethal injection because of humane reasons, there will be no difference between that physician and the other who decided to use the let die option because of humane reasons (Rachels, 4). Conversely, in the film Choosing Death, there were no examples that were in support of Rachel’s claim because whereas Rachels claims are a reality, the film is based on fiction. Hence, there is no single scene can be can be equated to Rachels’ active and passive euthanasia claims. Although Rachels is in full support of active and passive euthanasia, some organizations do not agree with him. For instance, The American Medical Association (AMA) that strongly refutes Rachels claims by stating that euthanasia is the termination of life by another person. Through AMA’s policy, it is evident that the only active euthanasia is mentioned, which implies AMA only forbids termination of life but not cessation of treatment (Rachels, 4). sAccording to Rachels, AMA should stop and reconsider its policy because the organization cannot legalize only one type of euthanasia and leave on the grounds it is morally illegal. This is because just like passive euthanasia that is supported by AMA; active euthanasia also needs a benefit of doubt. Rachels goes ahead to state in both cases, physicians’ involvement is directly involved towards ending the patient’s death. Unlike AMA’s statement that physicians do nothing by letting the patient die, actually their actions’ intentions is to have the ailing person die because he or she is at critical condition thus they end killing (Rachels, 5). Although active euthanasia normally requires patient’s consent, some situations do not involve consent from the ailing, for instance, if the victim is a baby. Researches so far conducted, one in every 600 children born in the United States usually suffers from Down’s syndrome, which is a genetic disorder (Rachels, 2). Some of the babies born with this disease are normally healthy; hence, they proceed to pediatric care for medication. However, in some cases, these babies are born with several body disorders such as the obstruction of intestines. Although babies born with such disorders can be operated on, they will experience a lot of suffering and pain throughout their lives in addition to the large amount of money that will be spent on their medication. Due to this, many parents opt to get rid of the baby through active euthanasia whereby the kid is given a lethal injection (Rachels, 4). Based on utilitarianism Act, a person is morally right if he or she does something to another in order to make him feel happy or painless. Therefore, an act-utilitarian would be in full support on the idea of active euthanasia. This is because through active euthanasia, the patient is relieved of pain that would have prolonged for a period of time and eventually killing him or her. This implies Utilitarian Act does not support passive euthanasia because whereas the physician is in a position to help the patient in relieving his or her pain, the medical practitioner actually waits until the ailing succumbs to death. Based on my opinion, Rachel’s decision of supporting active euthanasia is actually right. This is because some ailments such as cancer are normally painful especially when they are in their final stages. Because physicians have the necessary and adequate medical information concerning their professions, they are capable of determining whether a patient will survive or not. Therefore, instead of letting the patient endure severe pain knowing very well that he or she will eventually die, physicians should be humane and help in relieving the ailing person’s pain. Although euthanasia aids in relieving pain from the patient, physicians should never take advantage of the situation to kill patients due to ill motives such as revenge or for the benefit of another person as evident in both Smith and Jones’ cases. Euthanasia is the process whereby physicians opt to end a patient’s life due to his continuous suffering and pain. It is in two categories, which are active and passive. In active euthanasia, the physician decides to end a patient’s life for humane purposes because the ailing at the moment he or she is going severe pain equal to torturing him or her though not directly. Conversely, passive euthanasia involves the physician’s move to withhold medication, which eventually results to patient’s death. The debate on euthanasia being moral or not has been in existence for a long period. A number of people claim that active euthanasia in immoral compared to passive, whereas others hold onto the opposite. Based on Rachels’s argument, active euthanasia is better. This is because, whereas passive is painful and takes long, active euthanasia is usually quick and painless; hence the only thing required is the injection of a lethal medication or drug. Euthanasia can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient is in agreement with the doctor to end his or her life. This is due to pain whereas in non-voluntary, one is never involved in the decision making due to several reasons, for instance, age in the case of a baby or if one is unable to make informed decisions. Euthanasia is applicable in situations where one is in severe pain, for instance, if a patient is in the final stages of throat cancer. This stage is extremely painful whereby the only appropriate option encompasses resulting to euthanasia. Apart from ailments, euthanasia is also used onto babies who are born with complications such as intestine obstructions. Work Cited Rachels, James. Active and Passive Euthanasia. 9th January 1975. Web. 24Th March 2014. Read More