By now I’m sure that at least some of you know that I want to be a physician and am currently getting my undergraduate degree. One of the classes that I am taking to make this dream possible is biomedical ethics. If any of you read my last paper than you know the topic of discussion was euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. My blog today will be about that as well but it will considerably less informal and focused more around the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels that I read this past week and didn’t mention in my paper.
When people hear the words euthanasia they almost automatically assume it is wrong. I’m a firm believer that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I also think that opinions should be well informed of both sides of an issue. This particular blog is just about filling in some blanks and hopefully making you at least consider why euthanasia is or isn’t morally wrong.
Firstly allow me to clarify euthanasia, it is usually broken down into two different types. The first is passive and is defined as allowing someone to die; it usually involves withdrawing current medical treatment so the terminally ill patient is allowed to pass away. Active euthanasia involves committing an act that causes someone to die; it usually involves taking specific steps to deliberately kill the patient. The American Medical Association permits passive euthanasia but condones the other; I’m guessing many of you feel the same. However, Rachels argues that the difference between the two is irrelevant and that both should be permissible because the patient’s best interest should be the only consideration and that often the decision is made on irrelevant grounds.
He poses the idea that it is more humane to actively euthanize someone then to allow them to continue to suffer for an extended time through passive euthanasia. The physician and patient have already decided the fate so it would be best to make the individual as comfortable as possible as soon as possible.
When people hear the words euthanasia they almost automatically assume it is wrong. I’m a firm believer that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I also think that opinions should be well informed of both sides of an issue. This particular blog is just about filling in some blanks and hopefully making you at least consider why euthanasia is or isn’t morally wrong.
Firstly allow me to clarify euthanasia, it is usually broken down into two different types. The first is passive and is defined as allowing someone to die; it usually involves withdrawing current medical treatment so the terminally ill patient is allowed to pass away. Active euthanasia involves committing an act that causes someone to die; it usually involves taking specific steps to deliberately kill the patient. The American Medical Association permits passive euthanasia but condones the other; I’m guessing many of you feel the same. However, Rachels argues that the difference between the two is irrelevant and that both should be permissible because the patient’s best interest should be the only consideration and that often the decision is made on irrelevant grounds.
He poses the idea that it is more humane to actively euthanize someone then to allow them to continue to suffer for an extended time through passive euthanasia. The physician and patient have already decided the fate so it would be best to make the individual as comfortable as possible as soon as possible.
The second thing that Rachels points out is that the doctrine makes decisions about life and death based on irrelevant grounds. For example, a child with Down’s syndrome and congenital defects might not receive the simple surgery to repair the problem and be permitted to let die. Meanwhile a child with the same congenital defects but without Down’s syndrome would most certainly receive the treatment and live a normal life. The decision of life and death was based on the perceived quality of life not congenital defects and thus was unfairly grounded.
The final point that Rachels makes is that there is no real moral difference between the two because if the decision were the wrong one then the physician would feel an equal amount of regret and if it were the correct one then the method is irrelevant. J. Gay-Williams offers a similar argument in the article “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”. The author says that the phrase “passive euthanasia” is misleading and mistaken because “the person involved is not killed (the first essential aspect of euthanasia), nor is the death of the person intended by the withholding of additional treatment (the third essential aspect of euthanasia.)” The goal behind this course of action is to spare the patient additional and unjustified suffering, the unintended consequence is death by natural causes not by murder.
All of the arguments presented above are just a portion of what people claim. I hope that this has made you think and I encourage you to read up on the topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment