Euthanasia
Euthanasia, as defined by many philosophers, should only be morally permissible in certain circumstances where it benefits the one who dies. It is a widely held belief that an act of euthanasia aims at benefiting the one who dies. Using Kantian ethics as a model, one can determine that: It is morally permissible to engage in voluntary acts of euthanasia; it is morally permissible to engage in acts of nonvoluntary euthanasia, and; it is never morally permissible to engage in acts of involuntary euthanasia.
It is necessary to explore the different types of euthanasia first in order to fully understand what is involved in determining the moral worth of such acts. The two forms of euthanasia, active and passive, involve the actions of either ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. An active form of euthanasia refers to the act of purposely taking positive measures, such as lethal injection, to bring about a person’s death. Thus, it is referred to as ‘killing’ many standards. On the other hand, a ‘passive’ form of euthanasia involves the action of either discontinuing medical treatment, or not giving treatment at all. James Rachels and Philippa Foot, both philosophers, have explored the realm of euthanasia from different moral points of view. In James Rachels’ essay, “Euthanasia and Suicide: Active and Passive Euthanasia”, he states that neither active nor passive euthanasia are morally different from each other because the intent is the same for both types: to benefit the one who is to die by bringing about the patient’s death. Rachels claims the doctrine held by the American Medical Association, which states that ‘it is permissible in some cases to withhold treatment and allow the patient to die, but is never permissible to take any positive action to end life’, is not morally justified because passive euthanasia prolongs the suffering of persons needlessly, whereas active euthanasia will bring about a quick and painless death. Rachels also believes that since both passive
It is necessary to explore the different types of euthanasia first in order to fully understand what is involved in determining the moral worth of such acts. The two forms of euthanasia, active and passive, involve the actions of either ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. An active form of euthanasia refers to the act of purposely taking positive measures, such as lethal injection, to bring about a person’s death. Thus, it is referred to as ‘killing’ many standards. On the other hand, a ‘passive’ form of euthanasia involves the action of either discontinuing medical treatment, or not giving treatment at all. James Rachels and Philippa Foot, both philosophers, have explored the realm of euthanasia from different moral points of view. In James Rachels’ essay, “Euthanasia and Suicide: Active and Passive Euthanasia”, he states that neither active nor passive euthanasia are morally different from each other because the intent is the same for both types: to benefit the one who is to die by bringing about the patient’s death. Rachels claims the doctrine held by the American Medical Association, which states that ‘it is permissible in some cases to withhold treatment and allow the patient to die, but is never permissible to take any positive action to end life’, is not morally justified because passive euthanasia prolongs the suffering of persons needlessly, whereas active euthanasia will bring about a quick and painless death. Rachels also believes that since both passive