Euthanasia
"The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another-mercy killing-is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands,"(p.235) said James Rachels on the topic of euthanasia. I believe, and strongly agree with Rachels, that mercy killing is not permissible and is not what medical professionals should be doing. If we look at these mercy killings, or voluntary active euthanasia, they are the patients' request, usually after a traumatic event occurs that they do not believe they can live through, for their doctor to kill them with an overdose. I do not believe that under those circumstances the doctor should be able to kill this person, as they may still wish to live, but are only acting out of fear and panic. However, one thing I do believe is morally permissible is voluntary passive euthanasia, this occurs when life-sustaining treatment is not administered to someone in extremely bad health. In this case, there is no one killing anyone else, they are only letting this person die. These two methods of life ending treatment are very different in their moral aspects. I believe voluntary passive euthanasia is not only morally permissible while active euthanasia is not, but also that people can be happier by
choosing not to be kept on life support just to drag out the end of their life. First of all, the conditions at which these practices take place are usually very different. Voluntary active euthanasia is a timely and rash decision made by the patient to end his or her life because they no longer wish to live. These decisions are usually fueled by an event that they believe makes life not worth living. These can include a terminal disease, losing limbs, and paralysis. It is true that voluntary active euthanasia is illegal, but that does not mean that patients do not request it, and that doctors do not follow through with it. However, when we look at the other side, at voluntary passive euthanasia, these decisions are not made quickly, but decided upon by the patient usually before anything goes wrong. People can decide and document their wish to never be put on life-sustaining treatment before they ever step foot inside a hospital. Many people have done this because they believe that when it is their time to go, they shouldn't have to get dragged through a long process of life-support to extend their lives by 6, probably miserable, months. Here we see the other side of the argument for passive versus active euthanasia. Some people do agree that in some cases active euthanasia is preferable over passive euthanasia, but once again I believe that the circumstances under which the decisions are made should be strongly looked at. Active euthanasia is a killing, and it is a quick and painless death, it can be looked at as the easy way out. People can give up hope for a day, and decide they want to die, and we will never know what kind of life that person may have been able to lead despite their health problems. Active eu
Some common words found in the essay are:
James Rachels, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, , voluntary passive euthanasia, voluntary passive, voluntary active, voluntary active euthanasia, morally permissible, euthanasia morally, passive euthanasia morally, euthanasia morally permissible, life-sustaining treatment, life support, person die, killing person, choosing kept life,
Approximate Word count = 1166
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
