Euthanasia has been around for a long time and so has the argument, “Is Euthanasia morally wrong or right?” It has been a sensitive subject in terms of taking someone’s life away or letting them die naturally. Many people become apprehensive when it comes to the topic physician assisted suicide (also known as PAS) and the thought of it goes against religious beliefs, and the unanswered question is it unethical and dishonest to the means of the right to live act. More often than not PAS is associated with the word “murder”; because of its association with murder it brings up a vast of mixed opinions because the means of ends is in fact irreversible once chosen and no one is ever sure of what the “right” thing is. My position in this brief is
…show more content…
In James Rachel’s’ essay, ‘Euthanasia and Suicide: Active and Passive Euthanasia’, he states that “neither active nor passive euthanasia is morally different from each other because the intent is the same for both types: to benefit the one who is to die by bringing about the patient’s death” (Vaughn 239-240). Both are the same, so why not make it quick in painless for the patient versus satisfying our own moral rights for a natural death? I agree along with James Rachael that the doctrine held by the American Medical Association is not morally justified because passive euthanasia prolongs the suffering of individuals needlessly, whereas active euthanasia will bring about a quick and painless death.(240) Rachels also believes that “since both passive and active euthanasia have the same end, both are either morally permissible, or none at all, and, if given an option between passive and active euthanasia, active euthanasia would be more morally justified in the sense that it would be more ‘kind’ to the patient” …show more content…
Humans should have a peaceful death in cases of severe untreatable pain and agony; in the end who are we to dictate how someone can and cannot do with their own lives. In the end is PAS really considered murder? Or is it considered a relief from their agonizing lives? If we stay by our morals and let someone die naturally aren’t we doing more harm than good? Aren’t we allowing the person to suffer in their own pain (passive)? Either way if PAS is considered murder then so is allowing someone to die naturally. Thus, active euthanasia should be considered as much as passive euthanasia in certain circumstances where it benefits the one who
In James Rachel’s’ essay, ‘Euthanasia and Suicide: Active and Passive Euthanasia’, he states that “neither active nor passive euthanasia is morally different from each other because the intent is the same for both types: to benefit the one who is to die by bringing about the patient’s death” (Vaughn 239-240). Both are the same, so why not make it quick in painless for the patient versus satisfying our own moral rights for a natural death? I agree along with James Rachael that the doctrine held by the American Medical Association is not morally justified because passive euthanasia prolongs the suffering of individuals needlessly, whereas active euthanasia will bring about a quick and painless death.(240) Rachels also believes that “since both passive and active euthanasia have the same end, both are either morally permissible, or none at all, and, if given an option between passive and active euthanasia, active euthanasia would be more morally justified in the sense that it would be more ‘kind’ to the patient” …show more content…
Humans should have a peaceful death in cases of severe untreatable pain and agony; in the end who are we to dictate how someone can and cannot do with their own lives. In the end is PAS really considered murder? Or is it considered a relief from their agonizing lives? If we stay by our morals and let someone die naturally aren’t we doing more harm than good? Aren’t we allowing the person to suffer in their own pain (passive)? Either way if PAS is considered murder then so is allowing someone to die naturally. Thus, active euthanasia should be considered as much as passive euthanasia in certain circumstances where it benefits the one who