Introduction
Advances in medical science have enabled people to live longer by providing more health care options to ill patients. These advances have also presented many complications. Patients who would normally die from natural causes are now able to live longer, even with poor quality of life. One issue, in particular, arises when a terminally ill patient wishes to take his life in order to relieve suffering. Two main options available to these patients are active (“killing”) or passive (“letting die”) euthanasia. While some argue that there is a moral difference between killing and letting die, others believe that the two are not morally different. By using Utilitarianism to support my argument, I do not believe that there is a moral …show more content…
For the sake of my argument, I am referring to terminally ill patients whose pain and discomfort can no longer be managed. The health care professionals in charge of this patient should have taken every possible measure to treat the disease to extend life and health, but when it is determined that death is imminent, they are responsible for minimizing the suffering of the patient. If no other means exists and would only prolong the unavoidable and cruel death of the patient, then the patient would fall into the category of euthanasia I am referring to in my …show more content…
Losing a loved one is hard enough, but it seems to be even harder when a decision has to be made regarding how and when he will die. In many cases, families will feel less guilty if the death of their loved one is caused by passive euthanasia rather than active euthanasia. This would suggest there is a moral contrast. However, on the contrary, there is the possibility of a family member burdened with more guilt that comes by allowing a loved one to suffer even another day if it could have been prevented. Herein lies the same moral difference but in the opposite way. I contend that while it is a tremendously taxing decision to make on the part of the family members, the end result is death, and the intentions caused by either method is the same. By Utilitarianism, the consequences of both options are death to maximize happiness, making them morally
Advances in medical science have enabled people to live longer by providing more health care options to ill patients. These advances have also presented many complications. Patients who would normally die from natural causes are now able to live longer, even with poor quality of life. One issue, in particular, arises when a terminally ill patient wishes to take his life in order to relieve suffering. Two main options available to these patients are active (“killing”) or passive (“letting die”) euthanasia. While some argue that there is a moral difference between killing and letting die, others believe that the two are not morally different. By using Utilitarianism to support my argument, I do not believe that there is a moral …show more content…
For the sake of my argument, I am referring to terminally ill patients whose pain and discomfort can no longer be managed. The health care professionals in charge of this patient should have taken every possible measure to treat the disease to extend life and health, but when it is determined that death is imminent, they are responsible for minimizing the suffering of the patient. If no other means exists and would only prolong the unavoidable and cruel death of the patient, then the patient would fall into the category of euthanasia I am referring to in my …show more content…
Losing a loved one is hard enough, but it seems to be even harder when a decision has to be made regarding how and when he will die. In many cases, families will feel less guilty if the death of their loved one is caused by passive euthanasia rather than active euthanasia. This would suggest there is a moral contrast. However, on the contrary, there is the possibility of a family member burdened with more guilt that comes by allowing a loved one to suffer even another day if it could have been prevented. Herein lies the same moral difference but in the opposite way. I contend that while it is a tremendously taxing decision to make on the part of the family members, the end result is death, and the intentions caused by either method is the same. By Utilitarianism, the consequences of both options are death to maximize happiness, making them morally