Death and pain have long captured the mind of humanity. Although we have yet to conquer death, we can choose the manner in which we die, potentially avoiding the pain that often mars the end of our lives. However, many find the thought of ending a life before its time to be morally objectionable regardless of the circumstances, and the controversy surrounding euthanasia has been hotly debated since the times of ancient Greece (Kyriaki 98). Although there are exceptions, in most cases, passive euthanasia (allowing a natural death to occur) is considered morally acceptable over active euthanasia in spite of the suffering it often entails, this observation is demonstrated by the legal status of passive and active euthanasia globally. There are
…show more content…
The calculation would confirm the engineer 's choice to move the switch to the right as that course of events clearly equates to less suffering, and therefore more good. A deontological analysis leaves more room for debate. On one hand, the duty not to kill would argue that the engineer not switch the train to the right, as that option would kill the woman on the tracks. However, by not switching the train, the engineer would also be facilitating the woman 's death. Therefore, the issue of preserving life is in equipoise; both of the engineer 's options will kill the woman. Because the decision can 't be determined by the duty not to kill, other duties must be assessed, such as the duty not to harm. Here we find a deontological argument for switching the train to the right. By moving the switch to the left, the engineer would cause two hours of suffering (harm); the equipoise caused by the duty not to kill is tipped to the right and the duty ethicist has also validated the engineer 's …show more content…
Again, we must conclude that the engineer (doctor) made the correct choice by switching the train to the right. The outcome provided superior for both the woman who died with less suffering, and for the family who was afforded peace of mind in knowing the end came quickly. Using these two scenarios as a lens and employing both consequentialist and deontological perspectives, we can clearly see that active euthanasia is the morally superior choice in instances of both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia under the conditions of these allegories, including a terminal condition, extreme discomfort, and assuredness in the outcome. Diamondstone 5
Note
It could be argued that this allegory is flawed because the scenarios ' have precise time frames; the train will inevitably reach the woman at a specific instant. However, the time at which a ventilator or feeding tube is removed is often scheduled and is therefore also fixed. By assuming the train arrival corresponds to the scheduled time of euthanasia and the engineer has until that time to decide the nature of the woman 's death, the allegory holds
The calculation would confirm the engineer 's choice to move the switch to the right as that course of events clearly equates to less suffering, and therefore more good. A deontological analysis leaves more room for debate. On one hand, the duty not to kill would argue that the engineer not switch the train to the right, as that option would kill the woman on the tracks. However, by not switching the train, the engineer would also be facilitating the woman 's death. Therefore, the issue of preserving life is in equipoise; both of the engineer 's options will kill the woman. Because the decision can 't be determined by the duty not to kill, other duties must be assessed, such as the duty not to harm. Here we find a deontological argument for switching the train to the right. By moving the switch to the left, the engineer would cause two hours of suffering (harm); the equipoise caused by the duty not to kill is tipped to the right and the duty ethicist has also validated the engineer 's …show more content…
Again, we must conclude that the engineer (doctor) made the correct choice by switching the train to the right. The outcome provided superior for both the woman who died with less suffering, and for the family who was afforded peace of mind in knowing the end came quickly. Using these two scenarios as a lens and employing both consequentialist and deontological perspectives, we can clearly see that active euthanasia is the morally superior choice in instances of both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia under the conditions of these allegories, including a terminal condition, extreme discomfort, and assuredness in the outcome. Diamondstone 5
Note
It could be argued that this allegory is flawed because the scenarios ' have precise time frames; the train will inevitably reach the woman at a specific instant. However, the time at which a ventilator or feeding tube is removed is often scheduled and is therefore also fixed. By assuming the train arrival corresponds to the scheduled time of euthanasia and the engineer has until that time to decide the nature of the woman 's death, the allegory holds