Active and Passive Euthanasia - Essay Example

Definition of the problem in depth Euthanasia is a word that originates from a Greek word, which means good death. The Canadian Senate Special Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide defined the term euthanasia as the act undertaken deliberately by an individual to intentionally take the life of another person with the aim of relieving them from the pain they are feeling and thus leading to their death (Senate of Canada, 1995). The subcategories of euthanasia depend on whether the person who died from the act was competent or incompetent and whether the euthanasia acts are considered voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Involuntary euthanasia is done against the expressed wishes in an advance valid directive. For example, a doctor who decides to give a lethal injection to his patient who had given him the advance directive not to hasten his death and is now unconscious suffers his/her final stages of an illness that is terminal. There are times when the terms used in defining euthanasia bring about confusion or not clear like the use of the word “mercy killing” in describing non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia situations. Countries like European and most especially Netherlands, the major differences between euthanasia, homicide, suicide, and suicides that are assisted are clear. In Canada and the United States, suicide assisted deaths and suicide assisted by physicians are confusing many people when used. Assisted suicide is when the acts of killing an individual are intentional. The word assisted has been added to mean that there is an individual who is providing assistance in the suicide act hence supplies the means like lethal medication prescription or gun, the specific knowledge on how to induce the medicine or use the gun appropriately, or both means and knowledge. North America has used the term assisted suicide in the media industry to mean that act which is directed by an individual intentionally to end the life of another. The reason behind this is because the legal sanctions associated with assisted suicide are less than those of killing a person with an intention of relieving them from the pain of a long term illness thus referred to as “euthanasia.” Jack Kevorkian a pathologist who made headlines in 1990 for killing over 130 people put his claims of participation in those deaths as that of assisted deaths and not euthanasia. There exists a very fine line between assisted suicide and euthanasia. For instance, Northern Territory of Australia between July 1996 and March 1997 legalized euthanasia through the use of a computer machine that pumped lethal substance to the individual after he/she successfully answers the question asked by the computer and presses the required key. There are those arguments that are in favor of euthanasia based on individual liberty beliefs and situations of life considered unacceptable. These arguments in favor of euthanasia are based on religious/moral values and those of value and human life quality. The good death is the one that a person falls into eternal sleep thus euthanasia assures an individual dies dignifiedly and appropriately. David Hume a philosopher agreed that an individual has a right to choose the kind of death they would want hence emphasizes on individual liberty value. The right to human dignity maintenance aims at avoiding poor life quality during the process of death than to seek a particular way of having a good idealized death, as is the case of good death. There are also arguments against euthanasia which include sanctity of human life, the wrong diagnoses and new treatments given to patients, the slope that is wedged or slippery, disadvantaged, weak, and incompetent protection, wrong reasons of choosing death, clinical depression undiagnosed, physicians confidence eroded, and the compromise one makes when choosing to involve others in his/her death. Active and passive euthanasia Active euthanasia occurs in situations where another person or medical professions do something deliberately that, as a result, causes the patient’s death. Where else, passive euthanasia is the condition where the patient dies because of a medical professional’s failure to either give the right prescriptions or something that made the patient alive. Some of the things causing passive euthanasia includes, either disconnection of a feeding tube, the medical professional failure to carry out a life extending operation, failure to give life-extending prescriptions (drugs) and failure to switch off life support machines (Rachels 79). The possibility of abuse or not has been the common argument about euthanasia. In most cases, patients have difficulty in agreeing to the act of euthanasia as could be agreed by families who lack concern for their patient. At times, euthanasia both (active and passive) may occur in conditions where doctors want to use the hospital resources (medicine) to treat their own patients. Alternately, it may be a solution to patients disease that they may also term as “suffering”, where they adviseb the doctor on the procedure. However, in some medical conditions the patients term euthanasia as a depression relief. This has left debates on whether then, it should be legalized or not. As argued by many, that it can only be acceptable if only the majority of people are happy and satisfied with the idea. Thou, euthanasia from the abusers describe the occurrences as people failure to follow voluntary euthanasia rule also termed as an immoral act (Rachels 78). The act utilitarian states that, euthanasia is not morally imperative unless there are consequences faced by patients thereafter. Eventually, provides a question as to whether euthanasia creates less suffering than preventing it. On the other hand, it has been argued by many that the practice may be still correct if patient’s life on a higher percentage contains unhappiness. Nevertheless, for persons who value life, rarely urge for a death option. People argue that involuntary euthanasia is always wrong, if the patient is not given a chance to choose. Notably, it is right in cases where patients term it as happiness. The only query is whose happiness (patient and medical professionals) should be put into consideration. Different opinions about euthanasia have been of the essence in determining whether the practice is right or not. Some people have argued that an intentional suicidal incident destroys rationality, for example in service to pain. However, this situation may be exceptional in conditions like Alzheimer’s disease where the child is born with an incomplete brain. In respect, to human dignity, there people’s choice on euthanasia especially on occasions where patients have requested and in painful illnesses. It is has been argued as a way of showing respect to the decision process. Though deontologists have argued that human’s dignity should only be respected if the patient is making the right decision. Deontologists have stated that individuals must be assisted in coming with a conclusion about life before the decision is taken into consideration. Therefore, voluntary euthanasia could be a wrong idea if need to die is immoral (Rachels 79). Voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable if only there is a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Similarly, in both cases both patients die. A utilitarian may argue otherwise. However, various theories argue that justice requires, showing patients respects and acknowledging their rights and choices. Preventing individuals from death is a virtue and duty is a charity action. Nevertheless, there are cases where euthanasia is thought to be related to killing. This happens in a situation when the medical profession is required to administer to patient medicine or food but instead neglects the duty. As a result, the individual dies from deliberate negligence. In such cases, both charity and justice qualifies for the same measure hence no difference in the midst of neglecting someone to death and killing a person. Normally, the act of killing is unjust and is forbidden as it fails to respect the patient’s choice; although in voluntary euthanasia, respecting the patient’s choice means helping them to die quickly. Nevertheless, other deontologists have argued that everyone has a duty of preserving life even in conditions where patients choose to die or requests for it. As a result, some deontologists argue for passive euthanasia as compared to active euthanasia (Doyal 1079). Doctors should be permitted to perform active euthanasia with a patient’s consent. This should be done on certain patient’s conditions, for example, terminal illnesses, or those who are physically unable to do it themselves. Active euthanasia is referred to as morally healthier because it may take a short time and patient’s time of pain is greatly minimized. At times, doctors have had patients who suffer for a long time with uncontrollable pain and instead, the patients have asked for doctor’s assistance to help them die fast. This has been done as in the cases of incurable patients willing to die, doctors have felt morally upright by withdraw of prescriptions and hence lets the patient to die. Doctors in many instances, think that this way of offering assistance is better than killing a patient like in cases where the patient is injected with lethal chemical. In cases where the patient has no certain condition that may include terminally ill, this process should be prohibited. If not controlled, may result to murder of innocent patients who could have sustained the pain they could be going through (Doyal 1079). Certain conditions may be administered to by the use of specific drugs that at the end controls the situation at hand. Whereby the patient is able to resume normally at work inform of duties. Patients who suffer from incurables diseases for a long time have no other option other than be assisted to die. This in their mind brings them fulfillment in life and happiness. In cases of pain, the doctors allow euthanasia to minimize the chances of patient suffering. It may be as a result, where the patient goes to a comma, may not be able to recover from the state, and at the same time could have requested the doctor for the process. Doctors in such situations do not have second chances but attends to the situation by allowing the patient to die peacefully. This leaves the doctor satisfied by fulfilling the patients wish in life. In order to agree on what is debated on, is to accept that the greatest happiness in life is fulfilled by achievements. At times, it could be as a result of death to reduce suffering whereby some illnesses are painful, and the end of it is painful death. However, patients may require relief from the terrible pain in the form of assistance from doctors. Many medical professional argue that a lesser evil is more preferable than greater evil. It means that helping a patient to die may be better that abandoning the patients to die naturally. Notably, it may take long, and the patient eventually suffers from other uncontrollable effects. Secondly, causing patients death is a great evil if only death is a great evil. Meaning that one time everyone will die hence it may be the right time for the patient to die (Doyal 1079). Therefore, minimizing the pains resulting to peaceful and painless death as one would have required at one lifetime. Thirdly, if active euthanasia would be right then the existence of the patient in great pain would be a greater evil than death. For patients who are always in pain, waits for assistance from the tribulation they may be going through. In addition, medical professionals are their help and joy because patients are sure that they will help them go through the time of long tribulations. So as a result, allowing the patient live in such a condition is a more evil than causing their peaceful death (Doyal 1079). In conclusion, active euthanasia is a lesser evil as compared to passive euthanasia. This is because the doctors adhere to the patients call for assistance. It is much better to human life than allowing the patient live long with uncoordinated pain. The reason being painful moments, the death option may be a good option that brings an end to pain and suffering. Major condition may be as a result of terminal illnesses hence with doctors concept chooses to die so as to shorten pain. Works Cited Doyal, Len, & Lesley Doyal. "Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalised: If death is in a patient's best interest then death constitutes a moral good." BMJ: British Medical Journal 323.7321 (2001): 1079. Print. Rachels, “Active and passive euthanasia." Bioethics: An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice (1997): 77-82. Print. Sugarman, B. "Active Versus Passive Euthanasia: An Attributional Analysis1." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 16.1 (1986): 60-76. Print. Senate of Canada. (1995). On life and Death: Report of the Senate Special Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Service. Print. Read More