Term paper on Active Euthanaisa

Free Active Euthanaisa papers

Imigration To Canada
INTRODUCTION Many people immigrated to Canada with hopes of a better life and refuge from places and times of uncertainty. People in foreign countries were made aware of Canada and all it supposedly had to offer through channels such as relatives who were already living in Canada and governmental a

International Business Morality
Society’s general conception of the fundamental marketplace has dramatically changed within recent years. Throughout most of history, commerce has existed primarily (and, at times, solely) in the domestic realm, only on rare occasions interacting on an international level. However, with major

The Moral Permissibility of Legalizing Active Euthanasia

To date, in the united States of America, active euthanasia has been seen as

unacceptable in legal terms. However, the issue is not so clear in moral terms among the

public, and especially among the medical community. In fact, nearly half of the doctors

in the United States say that they would prescribe active euthanasia under certain

circumstances. The law that prohibits active euthanasia restricts many people from doing

what they feel morally justified to do. The moral aspects of killing a person would be the

primary point in the argument that society would be harmed by the legalization of

voluntary active euthanasia. Therefore, it is most important to morally justify the

practice of active euthanasia in order for an argument to be formed in favor of the

legalization of active euthanasia. I will first prove that passive and active euthanasia

have the same moral permissibility and therefore should have the same legality. I will

also discuss the two main arguments for the moral justification of active euthanasia as

well as refute four arguments against the legalization of active euthanasia. I believe

some of the arguments against active euthanasia can be dismissed, and some of the

arguments can be overridden by the importance of an individual’s self-determination and

well-being.

Before arguing my first point, it is necessary to understand the difference between

killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take

place in passive euthanasia, is morally permissible and killing, which is the action

considered to take place in active euthanasia, is not morally permissible. I consider these

both to be actions without any moral difference. James Rachels puts the distinction

between killing and letting die in a very understandable way when he said, “One may let

a patient die by way of not giving him medication, just as one may insult someone by

way of not shaking his hand.” (p.132). In Rachels example the action, or lack of action,

is not the relevant point because in each case in the example the actions are the same.

Instead, it is the intentions of the person which are important and relevant because the

intentions in each case are obviously not the same. I agree with Rachel and I too believe

the moral difference between killing and letting die does not lye in the action a person

takes, but in the intentions of a person in carrying out those action(s). Furthermore, it is

important to understand that if one of the two actions is going to be accepted it is logical

that they both be accepted because the actions are not morally different.

To say that killing is morally impermissible and letting die is morally permissible

or vice versa seems to be ignorant. Specific cases for killing and letting die can be

presented where the equality of the moral permissibility between the two can be put into

question. For example, a hunter walking in the woods trips over a rock and shoots his

son who dies, while in the other part of town a mother finds her baby lying face down in

water filled bathtub, does nothing about it, and the baby dies. The first part of this

scenario depicts an obvious case of killing, while the second part depicts an obvious case

of letting die. Although the actions in each case were the same, the case of killing is

more easily morally justified than the case of letting die because the intentions in the

former were good, while the intentions in the latter were bad. It is easy to see that with

each set of circumstances the moral permissibility of killing and letting die may vary

because of the intentions of a person. Therefore, killing, which is the action considered

to take place in active euthanasia, should have the same moral permissibility as letting

die, which is the action considered to take place in passive euthanasia, as long as the

intentions in each are the same because it is the intentions of a person that determines the

moral permissibility and not the actions of a person. Moreover, because passive and

active euthanasia have the same moral permissibility and intention, which is the eventual

death of a person, then active euthanasia should have the same legality as passive

euthanasia.

Having said that, I believe the most important reason for the moral permissibility

of active euthanasia is the freedom of self-determination, better known as autonomy.

Autonomy suggests that competent and free-thinking adults have the right to make

important decisions about their lives. I believe that the moral and personal benefits to

preserving autonomy in society outweigh any moral or legal arguments prohibiting

autonomy, such as prohibiting active euthanasia. I believe this because being able to

exercise autonomy is a value that is woven into nearly every aspect of life and to destroy

a person’s autonomy could greatly undermine a person’s life. Therefore, people should

be able to exercise autonomous decisions over most aspects of their life, including death.

To deny someone the right to make an autonomous decision about their death,

contradicts the basic American ideal of self-determination. Author Dan Brock sums up

nicely the reason why death should be an autonomous when he wrote, “If

self-determination [autonomy] is a fundamental value, then...it is especially important

that individuals control the...

Brock, Dan W. “Voluntary Active Euthanasia: An Overview and Defense.” Excerpted

from “Voluntary Active Euthanasia,” Hastings Center Report 22 (March/April) 1992:

pp. 165.

Rachels, James. “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” The New England Journal of

Medicine, 292, No. 2 (January 9, 1975), pp. 78-79.