CHECK ON SEMI COLON/COMMA USEAGE AGAIN
Permitting Active Euthanasia
Many people all over the world either currently suffer or will suffer from a terminally ill disease. When dealing with these situations, is it right to only give the patient the option to stop treatment and agonize until death? Or, is it right to end their suffering earlier through lethal injection? Terminally ill patients should not be forced to suffer; therefore, active euthanasia should, at times, be permissible.
To determine whether or not active euthanasia is worse than passive euthanasia, one must question, is there a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die? To answer this, consider this example of John and James, both in similar situations. Each …show more content…
Now, from a moral point of view, did either of these men act better than the other? If there were a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die, then one should say that James’ actions were better than John’s. But would one actually think that? Most likely, not; therefore, there is no morally relevant difference between killing and letting die. In other words, there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia; therefore, active euthanasia should be permitted just as passive euthanasia is. Now, in actuality, a doctor’s intent is not to end a life for an evil purpose, but per patient request under terminally ill circumstances. The point to prove is that active euthanasia is no worse, most often better, than passive …show more content…
Consider a terminally ill patient with brain cancer; they are in terrible pain with no chance of recovery. Whether the patient wishes to withhold treatment, or continues, the individual will wait in agony, only to pass away. So, the family and patient decide to withhold treatment to eventually end the suffering. Justification behind a doctor withholding treatment is that the patient will die whether treatment is continued or not. But notice, if treatment were withheld from the patient, it would take longer for them to die than if lethal injection were used. Therefore, in this situation, and others under similar circumstances, active euthanasia is preferable over passive euthanasia because passive euthanasia will continue to prolong the agony for a time, whereas active euthanasia will end it quickly. Similarly, active euthanasia proves to be much more humane due to the fact that the patient is put out of misery abruptly as opposed to waiting in
Permitting Active Euthanasia
Many people all over the world either currently suffer or will suffer from a terminally ill disease. When dealing with these situations, is it right to only give the patient the option to stop treatment and agonize until death? Or, is it right to end their suffering earlier through lethal injection? Terminally ill patients should not be forced to suffer; therefore, active euthanasia should, at times, be permissible.
To determine whether or not active euthanasia is worse than passive euthanasia, one must question, is there a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die? To answer this, consider this example of John and James, both in similar situations. Each …show more content…
Now, from a moral point of view, did either of these men act better than the other? If there were a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die, then one should say that James’ actions were better than John’s. But would one actually think that? Most likely, not; therefore, there is no morally relevant difference between killing and letting die. In other words, there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia; therefore, active euthanasia should be permitted just as passive euthanasia is. Now, in actuality, a doctor’s intent is not to end a life for an evil purpose, but per patient request under terminally ill circumstances. The point to prove is that active euthanasia is no worse, most often better, than passive …show more content…
Consider a terminally ill patient with brain cancer; they are in terrible pain with no chance of recovery. Whether the patient wishes to withhold treatment, or continues, the individual will wait in agony, only to pass away. So, the family and patient decide to withhold treatment to eventually end the suffering. Justification behind a doctor withholding treatment is that the patient will die whether treatment is continued or not. But notice, if treatment were withheld from the patient, it would take longer for them to die than if lethal injection were used. Therefore, in this situation, and others under similar circumstances, active euthanasia is preferable over passive euthanasia because passive euthanasia will continue to prolong the agony for a time, whereas active euthanasia will end it quickly. Similarly, active euthanasia proves to be much more humane due to the fact that the patient is put out of misery abruptly as opposed to waiting in