NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... aptness to which their moral worth entitles them (Sullivan, 220). The capacity to exercise our rationality and reason morally is what makes human existence meaningful. Individuals suffering from unbearable pain are still persons in the moral sense because they have the capacity to distinguish right from wrong, but in every other respect, they are deprived of the things that make their life desirable. They no longer have the ability to use their rationality and grow as individuals; instead, the entirety of their mental and physical processes is directed toward enduring their pain.
They have become mere animals struggling for survival and have thereby been stripped of their dignity. To force someone with intrinsic worth to continue in such a condition treats him or her as less than human; in fact, it denies them the consideration that we would give an animal in a similar circumstance. Having examined the justifications for euthanasia as a principle, I will now proceed to examine whether there is a distinction between passive euthanasia (letting a patient die by not treating him, for instance, by removing feeding tubes) and active euthanasia (taking some action to cause the patients direct, immediate death, for instance, administering a lethal injection). James Rachel's explained the Ama's philosophy on mercy killing when he wrote, [they believe] it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never acceptable to take any direct attain designed to kill a patient (Rachel's, 29). In the United States, as in most countries, passive euthanasia is legal while active euthanasia is not.
The basis of this thinking is that passive euthanasia involves only an omission, letting the patient die, while active euthanasia involves a direct act. By explaining that there is no morally relevant difference between acts and omissions, I will prove that active euthanasia is not immoral. For a utilitarian, that there is no distinction between acts and omissions is obvious. The consequences of our choices determine their morality; because the consequence of both passive and active euthanasia is death, the two acts are morally equal. Furthermore, from a utilitarian perspective, active euthanasia may be preferable to passive euthanasia. As Rachel's explains, if one simply withholds treatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if direct action were taken and a lethal injection given (Rachel's, 30).
If we examined the case of Rachel's hypothetical throat cancer patient, we would see that this is certainly true. Most likely, he is being fed intravenously, and it is the removal of this feeding tube that will allow him to die. Doing so means that instead of dying quickly, he will slowly starve to death, still suffering from the unmanageable pain even though a lethal injection could have ended his -- and his family's suffering -- much more quickly. If the object of utilitarianism is truly to increase pleasure and decrease pain, passive euthanasia is clearly immoral.
For a de ontologist, it is the intent of an action rather than its effect, which determines morality. According to Immanuel Kant, omissions are subject to the same moral rules as acts (this, in itself, tells us that there is no morally relevant difference between acts and omissions): they are morally acceptable only if we could will them to be universal laws of nature. We could not universally will that letting someone die is morally distinct from killing him or her. To see this, we need only consider the following scenario: Suppose that two friends, Wayne and Garth, get into an argument about a woman whom they both like. Garth strikes Wayne, and the argument escalates to a brawl. It quickly becomes apparent to Garth that he will lose the fight, so he picks up a board and strikes Wayne over the head.
Wayne falls to the ground, bleeding; he is unconscious and shows no sign of waking. At first, Garth is concerned; the injury appears to be much more serious than he intended. Then it occurs to him that if Wayne were to die, he would have less competition for the womans attention. Though he does not directly assault Wayne again, he does not seek medical attention and, several hours later, watches as he dies. Neither we, a judge, nor a jury would be satisfied with Garth's explanation that he only allowed Wayne to die; we know that Wayne could have been saved by a competent team of paramedics, and that Garth's intention was that Wayne would die from his injury. Moreover, we certainly would not will as a universal law of nature that people are not morally culpable, when by their omission, a person who could have easily been saved dies.
We can apply this logic to the case of active and passive euthanasia. As Rachel's tells us, The AMA policy isolates the crucial issues very well; [it] is the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another. But after identifying this issue and forbidding mercy killing, the statement goes on to say that the cessation of treatment is not the intentional termination of the right to life (Rachel's, 33). When a physician does not treat a patient, he does so knowing and intending that his patient will die. This is in no way different from administering a lethal injection with the knowledge and intent that it will cause a patients death. Finally, because morality implies legality to many, I will conclude with a brief discussion of the legality of active euthanasia.
The suffering of terminally ill patients is so great that to comprehensively ban assisted suicide would be a grievous error, but particularly since Americas health care is almost completely governed by for-profit HMOs, it is important to establish very stringent safeguards. The best way to protect patients from coercion by families eager for their inheritance or by insurance companies hoping to cut their costs is to allow euthanasia only to those who have previously requested it in a living will. Insurance companies could be legally prevented from raising premiums for those who do not desire euthanasia in the event of a terminal illness. Such a policy also answers a common objection to euthanasia -- which people suffering from crippling pain are not rational enough to decide that they want to die.
Free research essays on topics related to: active euthanasia, euthanasia involves, passive euthanasia, intentional termination, lethal injection
Research essay sample on Passive Euthanasia Lethal Injection
