Do Not Go Gentle Into The Good Night
In the first part of the following essay, the reason why specific writers approve active euthanasia will be discussed. To begin with, Richard Brandt approves active euthanasia for two main reasons. First, he claims that euthanasia shall be accepted since it does not cause injury. Secondly, he claims that one as no writes to act against someone’s will. Let us start with Brandt’s first claim. Brandt describes injury as a consequence of suffering. Therefore, in Brandt’s opinion active euthanasia should be allowed since, “if I treat him in a way in which he would want me to treat him if he were fully rational, or in a way to which he would be indifferent if he were fully rational.”(P.3) However, it is important to consider the fact that Brandt makes his claims considering that the victim or patient is “beyond injury” . For instance, he gives the example of a patient that has been declared brain dead . Secondly, Brandt claim that there is another morally relevant consideration in such a case, “knowledge of the patient’s own wishes when he was conscious and in possession of his faculties.”(P.4) He first makes the point that if it is morally obligatory to respect a person’s wishes regarding his body disposal and his possessions after his death, then it must be equally morally obligatory to respect his wishes if he is brain dead. Finally, a second writer also approves active euthanasia. James Rachels claims in his essay “Active and Passive Euthanasia” that active euthanasia is no worst than passive euthanasia and that there is no valuable reasons why passive euthanasia is legally approve and active euthanasia not. In a first argument, he defends his claim by saying that the justification to process passive euthanasia is, “that the patient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die anyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly. However, in a same current of thoughts, one could apply the same reasoning to the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document