Active vs Passive Euthanasia free essay sample

This paper aims at addressing some of the controversies about passive and active euthanasia and their effect in the world of philosophy and dignity for human life. Beside that, the paper aims at analyzing philosophical, religion belief and their effect to euthanasia application in medical field. Euthanasia: This simply means doctored death that might be painless which is intended to alleviate pain and continuous suffering to the patient. It is a death that occurs when an individual make a choice on the fate of his death. Passive euthanasia This is when doctors or people in charge of the patient withdraw their attention of care to the ailing. This is aimed at allowing for natural death to take place after losing hope of life to the patient. Active euthanasia This is whereby death is caused voluntarily to the ailing patient. This can be done by injecting the patient with a lethal medicine Philosophical problems are contentious issues that cannot be fully resolved. We will write a custom essay sample on Active vs Passive Euthanasia or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In this case there is dilemma as to which action to take giving room for peace and dignity for human life. Sub problem 1 What is the consequences and magnitude (philosophical problems) of allowing euthanasia at social level? Sub-problem 2 Does the euthanasia administration solve some of the pending problems in family matters? INTRODUCTION The main problem with whichever type of euthanasia in the philosophical world is whether it is ethical on human beings. These conflicts are due to cultural beliefs, religion beliefs and legality of the matter. In real sense, euthanasia is not the same as committing suicide. Imagine a situation whereby your relative has been suffering for more than a decade with an ailment that is not curable e.g. mental problem. The patient is not sane and even does not talk nor coordinate in any way. You as a family you have to provide all his medication and support knowing very well that he would not recover. In this case, passive euthanasia can be implemented but the maternal feelings of the relatives cannot allow them to withstand for a natural death to take place. PHILOSOPHICAL DILEMMA In philosophical problems, both passive and active euthanasia has its moral obligations. For example, in active euthanasia many regard this as unethical practice. Actually, choice is the basic principle for liberty and freedom to do what is morally good to an individual and the society. However, euthanasia when addressed from social perspectives raises some of the disputes such as lack of dignifying the right to live to the patient. 1) Professional role: Due to Hippocratic code of ethics, some doctors argue that administering euthanasia compromises their roles in this field of medicine. This is apparent where there is variation in this code of ethics. 2) Morally issue: According to the biblical teaching, it is morally wrong to take someone life irrespective of the situation. Some people especially religion believers’ regard euthanasia to be ethically unacceptable. In this view, they regard euthanasia as a type of murder and intentional euthanasia as a special suicide. 3) Denomination doctrines: According to the biblical teaching, euthanasia is regarded a breach of the sanctity of human life. Christians argue that only the creator who can terminate human life. Therefore, no human being has the right to take his or her life without sinning against the Lord. WHY I SUPPORT ACTIVE EUTHANASIA I support this because there is difference between existing and living. If there is valuation and dignity for human life, then there is need to advocate for a quality life that supports living human being and not existing human being whom we do not know when they will die due to illness. Therefore, I treasure victim’s quality of life. The main reason why euthanasia is administered is to ease the pain that the victim suffers without any hope of recovering. The soreness, pain and suffering a person undergoes during an ailment, even after using pain-suppressing drugs, cannot be compared to an individual who has not suffered the same harm. Beside the physical pain, it is very hard for victims to forget their emotional pain of losing freedom and independence. Again, this patient might be a disastrous to the parents or guardians since there is no hope of recovering. Therefore, the parents will have an everlasting problem whose end is not determined. Â  I support active euthanasia because of economic impact and scarcity of human resources. Scarcity of hospitals and doctors does not allow all patients to be handled effectively. Therefore, it is advisable to use hospital exhaustively. The energy of physician and hospital premises should be used to safe lives of those who can recover instead of keeping those who want to die. This way, the universal quality of care and concern is enhanced. It is in-philosophical to keep people alive when they cannot contribute to society and especially when they are willing to die. Lastly, many people and practitioners within the medical field believe and support that euthanasia is more ethical to those victims who have endured terrible sufferings at the expense of devastating and incurable illness at many homes. NATURAL OBJECTIONS, WHY UNETHICAL Morally issue: Active euthanasia lacks dignity for human life. According to the biblical teaching, it is morally wrong to take someone life irrespective of the situation. Some people especially religion believers’ regard euthanasia to be ethically unacceptable. In this view, they regard euthanasia as a type of murder and intentional euthanasia as a special suicide. Disastrous and too emotional to relatives: When permission is granted to take ones life, the family members spend much time at the bedside washing him dying slowly. This is disastrous and too emotional. Additionally, the wishes of the relatives may prevail over the patients right to manage his or her own life since they are the one bearing the cost. It is against the law of nature to cause intentional death instead of allowing for nature to play its role. In other word people should wait for natural death to take place. It is superstitious to tell when one is ready for death. Only God who knows, probably the patient might one day recover from a long suffering. ANSWER TO NATURAL OBJECTION The act and decision of euthanasia itself is not meant for causing harm. Therefore, a good effect does not result from a bad motif. Additionally, there is socio-economic impact that is caused by the ailing individuals. For example, hospitals and doctors are not enough to handle all patients who can recover and those who cannot. Therefore, it is advisable to use hospital exhaustively. The energy of physician and hospital premises should be used to safe lives of those who can recover instead of keeping those who want to die. This way, the universal quality of care and concern is enhanced. It is impeding to keep people alive when they cannot contribute to society and especially when they are willing to die. Lastly, due to loss of hope and despair, the victim can be pressurized to take the alternatives to take his life if he can. Therefore, pressure is the hazardous and painful means for those who wish to die. They might decide to commit suicide such as hanging. Relatives can influence the patient through psychological pressure to give in to voluntary euthanasia other than being a financial burden on their relatives. SUMMARY OF MY POSITION Viability of implementation: Actually, euthanasia is considered voluntary if the patient admits that he or she is ready to die. Therefore, the patient must be sane to make the varied decision knowing very well the outcome. In real sense, euthanasia is not the same as committing suicide. Imagine a situation whereby your relative has been suffering for more than a decade with an ailment that is not curable e.g. mental problem. The patient is not sane and even does not talk nor coordinate in any way. You as a family you have to provide all his medication and support knowing very well that he would not recover. Â  In this case, passive euthanasia can be implemented but the maternal feelings of the relatives cannot allow them to withstand for a natural death to take place. To be sincere, euthanasia to some extent should be a decision of the victims and not at national level. Of course, there should be proper legal framework to control the decision and act to avoid its abuse. CONCLUSION In real sense, euthanasia is not the same as committing suicide. You can imagine a situation whereby your relative has been suffering for more than a decade with an ailment that is not curable e.g. mental problem. The patient is not sane and even does not talk nor coordinate in any way. You as a family you have to provide all his medication and support knowing very well that he would not recover. The suffering person should have the right to access voluntary euthanasia if he understands the outcome. To be sincere, euthanasia to some extent should be a decision of the victims and not at national level. Of course, there should be proper legal framework to control the decision and act. This is because the current world is full of immorality and people are money mongers. One of the consequences of euthanasia is that people might deny others chances of survival and freedom of expression.