Active and Passive Euthanasia is a Sound Doctrine - Essay Example

Practical Ethics University Name Introduction This essay shows the difference between active and passive euthanasia citing various examples, arguments from scholars and readings. Active euthanasia is where a doctor is directly involved in the death of a patient. This can be through administration of a certain injection that ceases the breathing of a human being or rather a patient. In addition, it can be through prescribing a given dose that would lead to the death of a patient. On the other hand, passive euthanasia is where a doctor allows the death of a patient to occur naturally while observing and without taking any action to rescue the patient from death. In other words, the doctor watches the patient die while doing nothing which could save the body. That could be administering a given treatment or performing a given operation meant to save the patient from death. However, James (1986), argues that the doctrine is unsound since he states that there is no moral importance in letting a patient die or by killing a patient. In addition, he also argues that this doctrine is used in making decisions between life and death, whereas the grounds on which it is used is irrelevant. Active and passive euthanasia is a sound doctrine My argument is that the doctrine itself is sound since there is the moral importance to how a decision is reached in allowing or causing death. If a patient is suffering from an incurable disease, causing more pain, grief, and sorrow to the patient and his or her family, then it is ethical to administer active euthanasia in order to cut off the pain, and relieve the family from much grief caused by seeing their loved one in pain and sorrow. On the other hand, it is immoral to watch a patient die slowly in pain, dehydration and struggle when one could do something to ensure the pain is ceased and relieve is achieved. Analysis of Smith and Jones case In the case of Smith and Jones, Smith was actively involved in the death of his cousin with the ill intentions of inheriting the riches. In this case, there is an intention of acquiring something if the victim dies, which is totally different from a doctor who terminates the life of an incurable patient who will, at the end, die whether one likes it or not. The fact that there are other forces of selfish desires and motives that motivates Smith to perform the murder, this is not even a case of active euthanasia, but murder in real sense just as in the cases seen in the newspapers and Cabled Network News (CNN). This is similar to a terrorist performing a suicide bombing mission with his or her ill intentions of getting something using people who are innocent for their own selfish gains. This can be termed as immoral, unethical and should be incriminated in a court of law. The person who performs such an Act should be arrested, tried and jailed if found guilty. On the other hand, Jones lets her cousin (the victim) die under her watch without taking any action like trying to save the cousin. At least, she would have done something like calling an ambulance, perform a fast aid to the child and rush her to hospital. However, it was immoral of her because at the end of the day she had plans of drowning the baby. It is immoral to plan the death upon someone, and it mounts to killing. Even before the child slipped and fell, already, Jones had the plans of killing the child. In addition, she was ready to push the child down back into the bathtub, if necessary, of which even if she didn’t, she had the intention of doing it when necessary. In both scenarios, it was immoral since the intentions of both individuals was equally the same, but reached to rest by different actions. The two scenarios are very different to both active and passive euthanasia because there are certain elements that are involved and they include; There should be pain and suffering of the victim or rather the patient involved in terms of sickness. Secondly, There is the element of treatment whereby the victim should either be subjected to a certain treatment or not for an incurable disease like cancer. Thirdly, there is the option of not administering an injection to cause death or not. On the other hand, In Jone’s case, the victim could be saved from drowning, which is different from an incurable disease or sickness. It is an accident. Smith also drowns a healthy child causing him pain and death at last. The element of an incurable disease that causes pain and suffering to the victim is very important for one to relate these cases to both active and passive euthanasia. These two scenarios are cases of murder whereby the murderers involved had intentions of killing to benefit from the inheritance. Doctors who perform active euthanasia do not stand a chance to win or benefit from the death of the victims. The family members of the victims too, do not benefit or gain from the deaths of their loved ones. Instead, they are just stopping them from more pain and suffering endured while living with the incurable diseases. Physician Assisted Suicide Beauchamp (1996) is a scholar who has explored the topic of physician assisted suicide and he also makes judgement with regard to the law and the constitution. This is because many countries world-wide including France strictly prohibit the active involvement of a physician or rather a doctor to the patient’s death. However, Beauchamp agrees that at some point, it is alright for an active euthanasia to be carried out on a patient, bearing in mind that, he clearly states that his argument might not be totally sufficient in making it a law since the fact is that some observers are still looking at the issue of killing and letting die. According to Beauchamp (1996) there is a patient known as Sue Rodriguez, who suffered from Amyotrophic lateral Schlerosis who was denied the right to invalidate section 241 of the criminal code in Canada. However, in the same court some justices sympathized and gave her moral support to her intention of dieng instead of suffering and living in pain. The same issue also in the United States has faced a lot of challenges. This is where many cases of physician assisted suicide have not amounted to the level of manslaughter or murders in the courts of Law. As a result, Beachamp (1996), methodically came into three conclusions that can define euthanasia. He defines euthanasia from the Greek word good health, giving it two general meanings, that is the action of terminating the life of a patient suffering from a painful condition without inflicting pain on them. Secondly, it is the act of refusing to take action like administering treatment to someone suffering from a painful condition. Looking into these definitions, we can clearly say that there is the element pain in both scenarios. It is also evident that there are no any other intentions where one will benefit from the euthanasia as it is in the case of both Smith and Jones. Again, you realize that in active euthanasia, the doctor has to do it in the least painful manner or without any pain whatsoever. Therefore, the patient is likely to suffer lesser pain or incur any pain which is right and moral according to me. However, in the case of passive euthanasia pain is involved, whereby, the victim results to death with the pain. That is another major difference between active and passive euthanasia. In active euthanasia, pain is involved whereby the doctor does not interfere. However, in passive euthanasia, the doctor is restricted from taking action on a suffering victim. In the case of Smith and Jones, that is not euthanasia because the victim is being subjected to pain that can be bearable and it never occurred naturally as the victim is subjected to pain that could be avoided and to be precise Jones could have stopped the child from drowning by doing something about it since it was an accident and stopping the child from drowning by saving him could have worked. He could also have performed a fast aid. In most cases, euthanasia only applies where the victim is seriously suffering after everything has been done. At least something could have been done by Jones at first. She left the child die because she wanted her dead in the first place not because of the accident that occurred. According to Velleman (2007), he believes that physicians should choose whether a patient should be allowed to die or not, or facilitated to die or not. However, he feels that patients themselves should not be given the right to chose. All in all, he believes that prolonging someone’s life at some point would cause them more pain. Conclusion My argument in this essay is conclusively in favor of the fact that active euthanasia is morally upright and better than passive euthanasia since the patient is subjected to lesser pain from an incurable disease. There is difference in passive euthanasia because the patient is likely to suffer more while dieng and it could take longer. The case of Smith and Jones does not relate to any form of euthanasia due to the fact that both had other intentions of gaining from the deaths of their cousins. References Beauchamp T. 1996. Indiana Law Review. The Justification of Physician Assisted Deaths. Vol 29 Issue 10 pp1-5 Rachels J. 1975. Passive and Active Euthanasia. New England Journal of Medicine. Vol 292 pp 78-80 Vellema J. 1992. Against the Right ti Die. Journal of Medicine and Phillosophy. vol 17 pp 665- 681 Read More