Voluntary Active and Passive Euthanasia
Voluntary Active and Passive Euthanasia
Introduction
Euthanasia is a moral issue, and it is also referred to as mercy killing. Mercy killing or euthanasia is a purposely acting, or failure to act in order to end someone’s life, who is suffering from a terminal illness. For many people, medics included, matters of life and death are not easy to handle, due to the morality issues involved. Two types of euthanasia, depending on activity, exist: passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia can be compared to letting die, while active euthanasia is comparable to killing.
Universalizability morally treats a similar moral situation in a morally similar way (Miri, 2004). In agreement with Rachels (1975), letting die is failure to act to prevent premature death. The failure to act leaves other factors to lead to the death of a person. For example, failing to save a drowning person and just watching them drown or leaving them to drown without any form of assistance is a good example of letting die. On the other hand, killing is performing an act that leads to termination of someone’s life. Holding a person’s head down in water for them to drown is killing.
Passive Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia is the type of euthanasia that involves a patient suffering from a terminal illness, asking for the intervention of medical personnel to end their life. The euthanasia can be carried out passively or actively. In passive euthanasia, the medics stop offering any form of medical intervention, and eventually the patient dies. In active euthanasia, a medic offers a lethal injection that leads to the death of the patient.
Moral Difference between Killing and Letting Die
As the law of universalizability treats morally similar situations in a morally similar way, active, and passive euthanasia are morally equivalent. Strongly agreeing with Rachels, if American Medical Association permits passive euthanasia, it should also allow active euthanasia. In some instances, passive euthanasia increases the pain that the patient goes through, making active euthanasia more humane. The two lead to making decisions on matters life and the result of both is death. In passive euthanasia, failing to act is an act by itself. Regardless of some people perceiving passive euthanasia as morally acceptable while condemning active euthanasia, James Rachels was right to state that both are morally equivalent. A doctor who decides not to operate on an infant with intestinal obstruction is not different from another who decides to give a lethal injection to an infant in a similar situation.
Similarly, there is no tangible moral difference between killing and letting die. In killing, a person engages in an activity that leads to the premature end of life. The action could be intentional or accidental. In letting die, one chooses to do withhold any form of assistance to prevent premature death. In letting die, one can prevent premature death but they choose not to act. Choosing not to act is an action that morally equates letting die to killing. Both actions lead to premature death. In the cases of Jones and Smith, it was immoral for both of them to let the six-year-old cousin die for their selfish gains. Both Jones and Smith actively participated in the death of the child; it does not matter whether they participated directly or indirectly (Rachels, 1975).
Whether to Morally Permit Voluntary Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia is morally wrong. Most religions teach that there is a Supreme Being, who is the sole creator of life, and only that Supreme Being should take that life from a person. Therefore, the same way a person did not decide when to be born, they should also not decide when they should die. In some cases, a medic could make a wrong diagnosis of a disease, and a patient thought to be terminally ill turns out to be suffering from a treatable disease. The possibilities of such mistakes make euthanasia wrong and, therefore, should not be permitted (Devettere, 2009).
Additionally, many people perceive human life as sacred. Therefore, permitting euthanasia takes away the great value associated with human life, a situation that could lead to unneeded requests for mercy killing. Again, with the current medical and technological advancements, offering medical care to a terminally ill patient is always better than prematurely ending their life. Besides, morally permitting euthanasia goes against the medics’ code of ethics, which requires them to guard human life. Medic performing euthanasia terminates the very life they are supposed to protect. Finally, permitting euthanasia may slow efforts to look for cures of terminal illnesses (Devettere, 2009).
Conclusion
Conclusively, as Rachels stated in his article, in some instances, active euthanasia is more humane as it reduces the pain that the terminally ill patient goes through. The fact that both active and passive euthanasia ends a life prematurely morally equates the two. Similarly, there is no moral difference between killing and letting die, a fact affirmed by the law of universalizability. Again, it is morally wrong to allow voluntary euthanasia, for religious regions. Most religions oppose any form of prematurely ending a life, as the duty is left to a supreme being. Mercy killing also goes against the medical ethics, to protect human life. There are better methods of caring for terminally ill patients than killing them to alleviate their pain. Mercy killing is morally wrong.
References
Devettere, R. J. (2009). Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics: Cases and Concepts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,.
Miri, S. (2004). Rationality and Tribal Thought. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
Rachels, J. (1975). rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Rachels.pdf. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from rintintin.colorado.edu: http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Rachels.pdf
