The AMA's View of Euthanasia
As Thomas Sullivan expressed in his essay, Active and Passive Euthanasia: An Impertinent Distinction, he disagrees with James Rachels' interpretation of the AMA's policy on euthanasia, (the putting to death of a person with an incurable disease). However, the AMA itself states its agreement with Rachels' view of its policy. Much of Sullivan's argument revolves around his assumption that he has support from the AMA, support which he does not have. In Sullivan's essay, he critiques Rachels' arguments and feels that Rachels has misinterpreted the AMA's policy on euthanasia. The policy states that "mercy-killing" is forbidden; however, desisting the use of extraordinary means of sustaining life is permissible. Rachels believes the AMA plays the hypocrite, accepting passive but not active euthanasia, (active euthanasia is the employment of means aimed at putting a suffering patient to death, while passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of any means of life support, whether natural or artificial). On the other hand, Sullivan feels the AMA does not make this distinction. He says that the policy simply demands ordinary treatments but not extraordinary ones. To make the distinction between these means, Sullivan relies on Paul Ramsey's s
t the patient will profit from its application or perpetuation. Therefore, Sullivan believes that the AMA and writer Paul Ramsey side with his ideals. A problem that one can see with Sullivan's argument is his overconfidence in his interpretation of the AMA's policy, his belief that his rendition is superior to Rachels'. He assumes the role of defining ordinary and extraordinary means. To define these terms, he turns to Paul Ramsey. Personally, I had never heard of Ramsey, so I looked him up on the Internet. According to several sources, Ramsey was a well-known philosopher from the fifties through the seventies who wrote about many contemporary moral issues, only one of which being medical procedure. He has no connection with the AMA; therefore, we can not assume that he understands the AMA's use of the terms ordinary and extraordinary any better than we can. Do philosophers have the authority to interpret the AMA's vaguely written policy? Who does have the authority? Only the AMA can say what it meant when it adopted this policy. This reiteration directly states what Rachels claimed the AMA was saying; they see a distinction between active and passive euthanasia. In his essay, Sullivan uses his misinterpretation in http://www.amaassn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-140.986.HTM The AMA opposes the participation of a ph
Some common words found in the essay are:
Life AMA, James Rachels', Paul Ramsey, Internet According, Overall Sullivan's, Paul Ramsey's, Rachels Sullivan, Medical Association, According AMA, Ramsey Personally, passive euthanasia, ama's policy, interpretation ama's, policy euthanasia, extraordinary means, active passive euthanasia, active passive, ama saying, legalised medical termination, ordinary extraordinary, active euthanasia, patient's life, medical termination life, rachels' interpretation ama's, interpretation ama's policy,
Approximate Word count = 925
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
