euthanasia
The medical profession has recently been caught in the middle of the social controversies that rage over euthanasia. Government and religious groups, as well as the medical profession itself have sided with the 1973 American Medical Association's euthanasia policy statement. However, there are those who oppose the statement are speak out against the AMA's seemingly contradictory definition. James Rachels speaks out against the AMA's policy statement in his essay, "Euthanasia, Killing, and Letting Die," by arguing that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. In doing so, Rachels criticizes the AMA policy statement as irrational and he claims that the medical profession should reject it. However, Bonnie Steinbock, in her Book, "The Intentional Termination of Life," disagrees with Rachels' position, arguing that there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia, and that the AMA statement does not endorse or denounce either, and thereby supports the American Medical Association's views. Even though Steinbock disproves Rachels' thesis by arguing that the AMA policy disregards euthanasia, she does not claim that Rachels' moral standpoints are incorrect. Steinbock argues that the AMA policy state
By providing clear and concise examples of how the refusal to medicate does not necessarily imply passive euthanasia, Steinbock successfully disproves Rachels' thesis. Although Rachels insists that the moral sameness between passive and active euthanasia is based upon the AMA policy statement, Steinbock's views on the differences between the two actions seem to coincide with those of Rachels. Whether or not active euthanasia becomes a medically accepted procedure, there is no doubt that the AMA statement is not binding, but only meant to imply that passive euthanasia is an accepted medical practice. However, this is not to say that Steinbock vehemently disagrees with Rachels' views on passive and active euthanasia. Steinbock's thesis wasn't that Rachels was wrong in his views, only that he was wrong in interpreting the AMA statement. Although Steinbock never directly states it, she implies that passive and active euthanasia is morally acceptable. Her statements suggest that she is against permanently labeling the ceasing of life-prolonging treatment as a form of passive euthanasia, but on the other hand, she claims that in some instances it is morally correct to support passive euthanasia. She even agrees with Rachels' statement that, in some circumstances, it is beneficial to exercise active euthanasia. One would think that she would support active euthanasia while denouncing passive euthanasia so as not to contradict her own thesis, b
Some common words found in the essay are:
II Steinbock, Steinbock AMA, Rachels Steinbock, Steinbock Rachels', Medical Association's, Morality Euthanasia, Letting Die, Termination Life, , passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, ama statement, James Rachels, policy statement, passive active, passive active euthanasia, ama policy, imply passive euthanasia, termination life, intentional termination, patient's death, medical profession, intentional termination life, ama policy statement, difference active passive,
Approximate Word count = 975
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
