Euthanasia is a process whereby patients who suffer from terminal sicknesses or are in excruciating pain authorize a physician to induce death. This procedure is usually aimed at relieving the patient from excessive suffering and pain. Most countries in the world, except a few, allow this practice. Euthanasia is a word derived from two Greek words, eu and thanasia, which mean good and death respectively. Therefore, it means good death. Euthanasia is classified into two major groups. One form of classification classifies euthanasia as involuntary and voluntary. Another, which is also the most used form of classification, is passive and active euthanasia. Euthanasia is also called mercy killing or assisted suicide. Passive and active forms of assisted suicide have several similarities and differences. In this essay, we focus on the summary and comparison of active and passive mercy killing.
Passive assisted suicide is a form of euthanasia where patients suffering from terminal sicknesses are made to die. This is achieved by withholding the administration of medical care to the patient. The physicians can withhold medical care by not carrying out life extending operations or switching off life supporting machines. On the other hand, active assisted killing is a kind of euthanasia where family members of the patient and medical experts unanimously agree on the decision to stop a patient’s suffering and pain by use of active means such as administering a lethal injection that will end the patient’s life. Therefore, active mercy killing involves the physician and family members taking some measures to induce death such as the injection. Passive killing involves simply leaving the patient to die.
Some experts argue that passive and active mercy killing involves some form of action by physicians. There have been opinions on whether one of the two forms of mercy killing is better than the other. However, the truth is that killing an individual is not different or worse than leaving them to die. Therefore, passive and active assisted suicides are the same in terms of moral or ethical view. They are both ways of taking away lives and many people and countries do not support them. However, the moral motive behind both forms of assisted suicide are quite innocent and in good faith. The public and legal experts must focus on the motive of carrying out both forms of assisted suicide and not the action itself. The difference between active and passive mercy killing is quite small. However, based on traditional doctrines in terms of the divergence between active and passive euthanasia, there is a significant moral difference between the two. In some countries, passive euthanasia is legal because morally it is acceptable. This is because in passive euthanasia, the physician does not carry out a direct procedure that causes the death of the patient. On the other hand, active euthanasia is forbidden completely because in such a case, the physician would directly induce death. Direct inducement of death is equivalent to murder hence; active euthanasia is unacceptable. In USA, the association of medical experts forbids active euthanasia but permits passive euthanasia.
The traditional doctrine that allows passive euthanasia and forbids active euthanasia has several weaknesses. The first being that active assisted suicide is usually considered a more humane way of inducing death than passive euthanasia. In fact, passive mercy killing cannot be regarded as good death because the patients are left to die helplessly. Switching of a life support device or not administering medication lets the patient die slowly and in pain to say the least. On the other hand, active euthanasia would only take a few minutes. Administering a lethal injection when the patient is in deep sleep allows the patient to pass away peacefully and in less pain than in passive euthanasia. Therefore, the doctrine should not be used to make any decisions of life and death of human beings because if used, it is usually on irrelevant grounds. The doctrine is designed to show dissimilarity between letting a patient die and killing a patient, which has no moral importance.
Many people in the world believe that killing another human being is morally unacceptable and wrong. Basing your argument on this fact, both passive and active euthanasia would be illegal and immoral. This is because in both cases, the physician is involved in inducing death. In passive euthanasia, the doctor acts by not administering any form of medical care till the patient passes away. Therefore, it is an intentional process of letting the patient die. Therefore, if we are to believe that passive euthanasia is right, we also have to agree that active euthanasia is morally right and permissible. This is because there is no significant difference between the two procedures. In both processes, action or inaction by the doctors leads to the same result of death to the patient.
Given an example of two individuals with same circumstances, an explanation can be made on whether passive and active euthanasia are correct. Both people stand a chance of inheriting a lot of wealth when their young brother dies. One individual decided to drown his small brother when the child is swimming in the pool then makes it look accidental. The other individual sneaks to the pool area and sees the small child drowning but chooses not to save him. In this circumstance, some people would claim that watching a drowning kid die is less guilty than drowning the kid. However, in both cases, the two individuals make conscious decisions not to save the child from dying or to kill the child. Both scenarios have some form of wrong moral intent and are unacceptable. There is ill motive in both cases because both people want the kid to die so that they can inherit the wealth. Even though doctors do not euthanize sick people for personal gain, they can be related to this scenario. Passive and active euthanasia are not different because they are done with the same intention in mind and the end result is usually the same. Only the process of achieving this process is different. Using this example, we can conclude that there is no moral difference between active and passive mercy killing. If one is wrong, then both are wrong. If one is right then so is the other.
However, the traditional doctrine can also be considered right in some way. The doctrine states that passive mercy killing is morally acceptable in cases where there in a right motive but active assisted killing is totally unacceptable. The intention of inducing death is very important compared to the end result of the action itself. When the intention of inducing death is known from the beginning before conducting the process, both active and passive euthanasia can be considered murder because they are intentional motives to take away human life.
Even though death is inevitable in the case of passive assisted murder, physicians usually have no intention to induce death. Physicians are aware that if they do not act and provide medical care to the patient, death may occur. This makes death in the passive euthanasia case unintentional. There are specific criteria for ethical and moral intentions related to euthanasia. Before conducting the procedure of mercy killing, the doctor must know whether his actions or refrains are based on the objective of inducing death. They must also know whether the inducement of death is planned or chosen and if the intention is deadly. The difference between active and passive euthanasia is that in passive mercy killing, the doctor does not conduct the procedure to induce death intentionally. The intention or motive is to allow the natural cycle of human existence to continue without medical intervention of any kind. On the other hand, active mercy killing is driven by the objective to kill. The doctor simply kills the patient by administering a lethal injection or any other method to induce death.
The difference established by the association of medical experts in America between passive and active mercy killing is important to all medical experts. Medical experts endorse passive mercy killing in some instances, but they forbid active assisted killing in all instances. However, active mercy killing would be logical in some instances. For example, if a patient suffers from a terminal disease. It is certain that the patient would die in a few days. However, the patient is in great pain and since they are certain to die, they authorize the physician to conduct mercy killing. If the doctor uses passive euthanasia, it will take time for the patient to die and this will cause even more pain and suffering to the patient. However, if active euthanasia is used, the patient will die in a short time and in much less pain than in the first scenario.
A close consideration of the arguments regarding active and passive assisted suicide leads to the dilemma of whether there is any form of moral distinction between the two kinds of assisted suicide. In reality, there is no ethical or moral difference between the two. While active euthanasia is a positive contribution aimed at accelerating death, passive euthanasia omits some steps that lead to death. The omitted steps in passive euthanasia would otherwise support and elongate human life regardless of whether it is painful or not. If there is no distinction between letting die and killing, there should be no difference between the two forms of euthanasia. Both cases have no moral considerations because they lead to the same outcome. However, active euthanasia is considered more compassionate than passive euthanasia. Both forms of euthanasia should be illegalized to avoid contentious issues. This is because permitting one form of assisted suicide and prohibiting the other is clear bias. The ethical concerns and moral acceptability of active and passive mercy killing are identical.
Works Cited
Steinbock, Bonnie and Alastair Norcross. Killing and Letting Die. 2. Fordham: Fordham Univ Press, 1994.
Tulloch, Gail. Euthanasia: Choice And Death. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005.
