Difference between Active and Passive Euthanasia - Assignment Example

Active and Passive euthanasia Name University Course Tutor Date Introduction Sickness may be tormenting especially when it drains a lot of money from the family of the sick person. In addition, when the sick are in an irreversible coma conditions, it causes too much emotional pain to the people watching over the sick patients (Euthanasia and assisted suicide n.d.). Under such situations, doctors may give the family members of the sick an alternative of relieving the sick from suffering by performing euthanasia. This means that the doctor deliberately ends a patient’s life either by withdrawing treatment or by practically injecting the patient with an overdose of the medication to kill the person slowly. However, research shows that some people prefer carrying euthanasia while others consider it as manslaughter. This paper shall help in analyzing the difference between active and passive euthanasia. In the end, one can determine if there is any moral significance got from the distinctions. Active and passive Euthanasia Euthanasia comes in two forms, which include active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when a patient is injected with sedatives to end the patient’s life (Goel 2008). Under most occasions, some doctors may intervene and educates the family of the patient on the benefits of euthanasia. For example, the doctor may tell the patient’s family members that the disease is incurable or the comma unto which the patient is in cannot be reversed. Consequently, the doctor may advise the family members to allow the hospital to perform active euthanasia and relieve the patient from continuous suffering. In the end, it also helps he family members to save money used on someone seen to die soon eventually. Passive euthanasia takes a perceives a different mode of killing as it involves withdrawing treatment. In this case, the patient is not given full dosage of the treatment as required (Rachels n.d.). In addition, in case the patient was on life support machine like oxygen, the machine is removed and the patient struggles and dies instantly. In other situations, the patient is not fed instead the patient is left to starve until the patient dies. Considering all factors and modes of practicing euthanasia, one can conclude that a patient’s life is cut short as the doctor kills the patient before the time person’s natural death occurs. On the contrary, one can debate that euthanasia truly releases a patient from suffering. It can also save the patients family members’ money expenses especially if the family cannot afford to keep the sick in hospital for long due to the huge bills. Why people practice euthanasia As stated earlier, people practice euthanasia for different reasons. In some societies, people find euthanasia as the best alternative of relieving patients from continuous suffering. For example, someone may undergo a terrible accident that affects the brain (Moreland 2009). This may take the person to a coma for several years. In addition, the condition may become irreversible, meaning that the patient may not recover forever. Such conditions may force a family to decide on partaking euthanasia to help the patient from suffering Seeing a person feed on tubes on a daily basis may be tormenting to the patients family or the people who loved the patient. His means that such chronic illnesses may affect someone emotions and derail the person emotionally. Consequently, some doctors may advise parents of the patient on the need for euthanasia especially if the doctors are 99% sure that the condition is irreversible (Mahmood 2008). In the end, the family members may take this option with the aim of helping those who are physically affected by the person’s condition. Other people opt for euthanasia due to money issues. Some families may lack funds to keep the patients within the hospital to ensure that the patient receives care as desired (Zickos 2011). In most cases, when a family lacks the capability to keep the patient in a hospital or to sustain the patient’s health as required, doctors ask the family members to consider euthanasia. In the end, such family members may agree to the idea for personal interest and save the family financial constrain. Moral significance of active and passive euthanasia. Different countries handle cases of Euthanasia differently. According to European law, any type of euthanasia is punishable by law. This act is considered as manslaughter as most patients are not involved in the decision due to status of their health. However, countries like Belgium and Switzerland practice active and passive euthanasia respectively. While looking through this debatable act, one should analyze the reasons as to why euthanasia is practiced in some societies. Even though active and passive euthanasia lead to death of a patient, the two types of euthanasia, moral significances exist. In any society, lives of human beings tend to be at risk even if one is not sick. This means that life is delicate and can end at any time. For instance, some deaths occur after other people shoot a person or a person may die due to the effect of an impersonal cause like lightning. In either case, when physicians carry out active or passive euthanasia, the moral difference between the two types of euthanasia is to determine if the cause was physical causality or a moral guilt (Garrard & Wilkinson 2005). When performing active euthanasia, the moral significance in this act shows that physicians kill because of the physical damages the sickness exhibits. Doctors permit active euthanasia to make death quick and stress free just the way someone can be shot and die instantly. On the other hand, passive euthanasia occurs due to moral guilt. In this aspect, one should understand that doctors have feelings. Whenever doctors see how certain incurable diseases eat up the patients, the doctors feel guilty for allowing the disease mistreat a patient while the doctors try to make things better for the patient. In addition, when doctors decide to undertake passive euthanasia, medically one can assume that the doctor did not kill the patient, rather it allowed the disease to take initiative. The only role played by the doctor is to increase the rate at which the patient dies. Consequently, it can be compared to a scenario unto which a person is killed by lightning. In such a case, an impersonal being (lightning) caused the death of the patient, just the way hunger can kill a person when practicing passive euthanasia. People presume that reason as to why physicians advocate for euthanasia occurs as most people state that living at the support of a life machine is like being partially dead (Lane 2005). Research shows that most people would not appreciate the fact of being supported by machines for a long time in order to breathe or eat. Therefore, such a factor helps in differentiating the moral perspective of euthanasia in terms of following legal actions or moral action. In the case of active euthanasia, one can state that injecting a patient after staying on continuous coma for several years without any slight change is morally right. While considering passive euthanasia, most doctors believe that it is morally upright to withdraw treatment that allows patients in question to die than actively participating in the cause of the patient’s death (Paterson 2008). Practically, passive euthanasia is determined as dying with dignity as one struggles to survive unlike someone getting an injection that eventually kills the patient. On the other hand, most courts do not rule in favor of euthanasia. However, if the court is convinced that the patient deserved to die after continuous illness, then the court considers the act morally upright and legal. Therefore, this concludes that the major difference in moral act between active and passive euthanasia is to show that active euthanasia practically involves killing a human while passive euthanasia is helping a patient overcome stressing and painful situations. Practicing euthanasia creates a feeling of either killing or omission. In actual sense, when a person undergoes euthanasia it is believed that people are man slaughtered (Active and passive euthanasia n.d.). However, the concept can be compared to this scenario. Mark has the opportunity of keeping his father’s inheritance in case Marks brother dies. According to human ethics, if Mark finds his brother in the bath tab and practically drown the boy to death, Mark will be charged for committing a crime. However, in case Mark accidentally sees Arnold fall, slip into the bath tab and drowns, without making an effort of helping the drowning boy Mark will live with the guilt of not saving Arnold. Considering this scenario, one can note that, the difference in active and passive euthanasia is based on logic (Zickos 2011). According to utilitarian perspective, this philosophy allows doctors to consider logic rather than make decisions based on absolutism. The law should always critically analyze the benefits of euthanasia and allow it to be practiced in all countries. However, when some countries opt to consider this law, euthanasia should be restricted to passive acts as it sounds more logical than practically injecting a person to death. This should not be an automatic decision. Several tests should be allocated, and strong evidence issued to ensure that passive euthanasia is the best. Therefore, passive euthanasia outsmarts active euthanasia as passive euthanasia kills a patient slowly unlike active euthanasia that kills a person immediately. Conclusion In order to understand euthanasia, one must understand the logic behind this concept. For a longtime, people have regarded euthanasia as an act of murder. However, looking at the ideology on a utilitarian perspective helps people understand that doctors act out of logic rather than emotions. It may sound unethical to let someone die. Seeing a patient suffer for years is painful especially if different doctors give the same conclusion that the patient’s condition is irreversible. Consequently, family members should look into logical perspectives and make a decision that will help both parties. In case the patient’s family settles for euthanasia, the state should allow passive euthanasia rather than active euthanasia. In the end, it will be the best way of relieving a patient from severe suffering and at the same time saving family members more hospital expenses. Reference List Active and passive euthanasia n.d., viewed 10 June 2013, Euthanasia and assisted suicide n.d., viewed 10 June 2013, Garrard, E & Wilkinson, S 2005 Clinical ethics passive euthanasia, viewed 10 June 2013, Goel, V 2008, Euthanasia – a dignified end of life! viewed 10 June 2013, Lane, B 2005, Active and passive euthanasia is there a moral distinction? viewed 10 June 2013, Mahmood, K. 2008, ‘Difference between Voluntary Active and Voluntary Passive Euthanasia: An ethico-legal perspective’, RMJ, 33 (2), 242-243. Moreland, J 2009, Euthanasia arguments, viewed 10 June 2013, Paterson C 2008, Assisted suicide and euthanasia: A natural law ethics approach, viewed 10 June 2013, Rachels, J n.d., Active and passive euthanasia, viewed 10 June 2013, Zickos, C 2011, Fear not death, viewed 10 June 2013, Read More