Euthanasia has been debated for a long time now. There are many divergent and convergent opinions on the issues of Euthanasia. One wonders whether is it is possible to justify euthanasia. There are two types of euthanasia, passive and active. To differentiate between the two, one has to carefully analyze the fundamental differences from a traditional point of view. From a traditional point of view, passive euthanasia is permissible while active euthanasia is highly prohibited. However, active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia that is mainly just letting an individual die (James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, 2011). The boundary between the two is the moral standing of willfully terminating life and letting one die. What necessitates euthanasia?
In the medical fields, a time comes when all the treatment options have been exhausted and therefore, there is no any other remedy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010). At this time, the medics consider euthanasia as an option of stopping the individual from suffering. After making such a decision, a consequent decision as to whether use active or passive euthanasia is made. Internationally, mercy killing is allowed only during extreme conditions that prolonging the life of a patient is impossible. However, the process of preparing one for euthanasia has to be made whereby the patient or the caretakers are freely enters into consent agreement (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010).
Why is active euthanasia preferred? Active euthanasia involves the use of quick methods of termination one’s life, such as the lethal injection (“Active and Passive Euthanasia,” n.d). In this case, the patient, after entering into consent for euthanasia is prepared for the process of terminating one’s life. The person is then injected and dies within a short period. It is, therefore, less painful and quick such that it safe not only the patient, but also the family members who do not have to wait as the patient dies slowly. In some instances, after withdrawal of the treatment, the patient may not die as quickly as expected. Picture a scenario where the patient does not die for as long as three months and lies on the hospital bed. The agony is completely unnecessary since there is an option in quick, efficient active euthanasia.
In many occasions, children are born with Down’s syndrome and congenital defects that require an immediate operation that may or may not save the life of the infant. It is the decision of the parent and the medical practitioner to decide whether to let the infant die or perform the operation. In particular, the parent and the doctor choose passive euthanasia if they let the infant die. Although at this point letting die is possible, the doctors’ mandate is to safe life where possible. Letting the infant die, without first attending treatment is immoral. In fact, doctor finds it difficult to let such happen. Letting the child live by performing the operation does not stop other problems associated with the downs syndrome. Nevertheless, should the doctor and the parent choose to terminate the life of the child, it is more painful, as stated earlier, to watch the child wither due to dehydration and die. The doctor suffers and the parent too, therefore, it is best to use active euthanasia to save the survivors the agony of waiting.
There are divergent opinions on active and passive euthanasia. Some argue that from a moral perspective, it is better to allow one to naturally die, than killing the person though an active means. But, such ought to be subjected to careful analysis. If a doctor chooses to actively terminate life or let die, the differences, considering the end results, are the same. The means may differ in that one is left to die while the other is actively killed. But all end up dead and ending the pain. The moral dilemma of letting die and actively killing does not hold any water since the end results are similar. For example, if one watches a person die from an accident without saving him, and the person who kills the person willfully, both have violation of morals since their actions are both a perversion of what is considered as moral. It is similar in the active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.
Some argue that when the doctor lets the patients die; the doctor does nothing, while injecting with a lethal injection is something. The irony is both do something, one withdrawals treatment while the other may not necessary withdrawal the treatment, but injects a lethal injection. The only difference between passive and active euthanasia is withholding treatment and injecting lethal injection, or just withholding the treatment alone.
In conclusion, from a moral standing, both active and passive euthanasia are the same. However, a big question arises as to whether a sick person can competently enter into consent to terminate his or her life (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010). The answer to this question is contested, but the conditions of the patient determine the competency of the patient.
References
James Rachels and Stuart Rachels (2011). The elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th Ed. McGraw- Hill Higher Education.
“Active and Passive Euthanasia: James Rachel,” (n.d). Retrieved on November 2, 2014 from http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Rachels.pdf
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010). Voluntary Euthanasia. Retrieved on November 2, 2014 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/
