The policy prohibits active euthanasia, but the statement begins to deny that no further treatment is related to the intentional termination of life. Rachels points out the mistake in the statement. He thinks that doctors are only worried about the patient will die soon, or the patient’s life will become a huge burden. Nonetheless, he shows the same viewpoint in these cases that significant difference between killing and letting die hardly exist in the case of euthanasia. No matter what humane reasons that a doctor decides to let a patient die, his decision would be morally reprehensible.…
Jack Kevorkian, a pathologist who assisted 130 terminally ill patients to “die with dignity” brought to light the controversial debate on euthanasia. He pioneered a new perspective to “mercy killing” as virtuous and appropriate for those with inoperable illnesses. At Thomas Youk’s request, a ALS victim, Kevorkian injected a strong dose of potassium chloride to end his suffering. This death machine known as “Thanatron” was constructed out of spare household tools, which allows the patients to be in a deep coma before stopping their heart. “ Doctor Death” was then charged with second degree murder on March 6, 1996.…
Karen Anne Quinlan, Jack Kevorkian, names of common, everyday people who have, in recent years, become household words. Upon hearing the name Karen Anne Quinlan, ones mind is immediately taken to the bedside of the lifeless shell of what was once a full of life young woman. We see the straggles of a family who desire nothing more than to lay to rest the remains of their daughter. Jack Kevorkian, the "killer doctor," imprisoned for granting the requests of his terminal patients. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word euthanatos, which translates literally to mean good death.…
“Rachels and Brock” Rachels thesis is active euthanasia is morally permissible under conditions when passive euthanasia is morally permissble and the patient wants active euthanasia. Rachels argue there is not a difference between killing someone or letting one die( Rachels pg 649). Rachels makes reference to patients with terminal illness. Once treatment is no longer allievate pain, the patient and family is requesting help because of the suffering. Rachels introduce another point the Conventional Doctrine makes decisions concerning life or death on irrelevant grounds( Rachels pg. 650).…
In James Rachel’s “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” he specifically argues, “that the traditional distinction between killing and letting die is untenable” (Rachels, 1975, p. 678). Rachels believes killing is not any worse than letting someone die. Therefore, passive euthanasia is not better than active euthanasia. For legal reasons, physicians may have to differentiate the difference between passive and active euthanasia, but, “they should not give the distinction any added authority and weight by writing it into official statement of medical ethics,” (Rachels, 1975, p.678). Active euthanasia is defined as killing the person directly.…
Introduction Is legalizing Euthanasia immoral? Unethical? Should it even be a topic of discussion? Jack Kevorkian a famous physician believes that euthanasia should be legalized as he states “dying is not a crime”. A big body of the Government of Canada would also approve euthanasia being legalized.…
Then I will utilize aspects of James Rachels paper, “The Morality of Euthanasia”, in order to illustrate how active euthanasia can be morally permissible. Afterward, I will explain some aspects of my argument that others might find fault in and refute…
In this essay, I will contend that Brock’s argument in favor of the moral permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is sound and that Brock offers persuasive responses to the objection that (A) VAE is an act which involves the deliberate killing of an innocent person and (B) the deliberate killing of an innocent person is always morally wrong. To achieve this, I will begin by summarizing Brock’s argument for the moral permissibility of VAE. Then, I will synthesize the objection to Brock’s argument and Brock’s subsequent responses. Finally, I will describe why I find Brock’s responses persuasive. Brock’s argument for the moral permissibility of VAE can be constructed as follows: (1) VAE is supported by the “values of patient well-being…
Canada and Euthanasia Euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of someone who is in a great deal of pain and suffering. Euthanasia should be legalized because there are many ways that Euthanasia can be performed in humane ways. It should also be legalized because people should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to be relieved of their agony. And the Netherlands have already legalized euthanasia making them a good example to follow.…
I also agree with your response on Euthanasia. A person's life should not be dictated by people but rather by the person in discomfort. Feeling pain is a horrible situation and it is especially worse when eventually death will overpower the treatment used to keep them alive. While the person's family or close friends might suffer for letting a loved one die, it was the better decision since the pain is gone and they passed relatively peacefully. I enjoyed reading your reply to this question because it offered me insight and changed my stance on the topic of Euthanasia.…
After examining all the relevant argument surrounding this topic, it was easy to formulate an opinion supporting voluntary euthanasia in limited circumstances. The contemporary thinker, Peter Singer provides a sound argument that outlines how voluntary euthanasia keeps with the ultimate objective of healthcare. When debating the morality of voluntary euthanasia, it is important to consider why it is morally impermissible to kill a human being. According to Singer, the fact that killing is considered wrong simply because a being is human is not a strong enough reason for it to morally wrong in all situations. This idea that human life is intrinsically valuable stems from religious ideals and is commonly defended using deontology (Singer, “Voluntary” 528).…
In 1975, published in New England Journal of Medicine, Rachels wrote an essay discussing the ethics and moral permissibility behind euthanasia titled “Active and Passive Euthanasia”. In this essay, Rachel 's begins by giving his own definition of passive euthanasia saying that it is taking the action of ending or withholding the necessary medical actions to keep someone alive who is otherwise going to die without it. Rachel 's continues by saying that active euthanasia is taking direct action to end the life of someone who is going to die regardless of medical treatment. Rachel 's then links these definition to what he believed was the standard view on euthanasia and cites statements endorsed by the American Medical Association (also known as the AMA). Rachel 's interprets the statement by the American Medical Association which was endorsed by the house of delegates in december of 1973 as “accepted by most doctors”.…
“One reason why so many people think that there is an important moral difference between active and passive euthanasia is that they think killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die” (pg 639). The opinion of the majority is that active euthanasia is looked down upon because it involves killing someone, while passive euthanasia does not involve the murder of an individual since he or she is at the mercy of nature. Killing someone has long been linked to murder, therefore, the society has given a negative connotation to active euthanasia, comparing it to murder. Rachel does not have an opinion in this case but his argument portrays that both killing and allowing one to die are equally reprehensible – both morally and also by the…
The following three arguments will subsequently be anaylzed in the philosophical context of moral theories put forth by Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. The first argument in favour of permitting euthanasia is that when an individual is suffering from a terminal disease or unbearable pain, it it seen as morally just to allow them to terminate their life, rather than forcing them to continue suffering. Euthanasia in this scenario is perceived as a humanitarian solution through…
Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, involves a person in extreme suffering, and wishing to deliberately end their life with the help of another person. Euthanasia is illegal in a majority of countries. These countries feel that it should never be ok for someone to help another person kill themselves regardless of the circumstances and even class it as manslaughter or murder (Choices, 2015). A utilitarian has many views on the subject and why it is acceptable and why it is not. Throughout this assignment, I will go into further detail of a utilitarian’s view on euthanasia and whether or not they think it is acceptable.…