Passive Euthanasia And Voluntary Active Euthanasia example essay topic

The controversy surrounding euthanasia, and the arguments supporting or protesting the practice have raised serious concern and problems in the medical field for years, as well as society and the world as a whole. Many people may confuse euthanasia with assisted suicide, the difference is in euthanasia, one person does something that directly kills another. For example, a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient. In assisted suicide, a non-suicidal person knowingly and intentionally provides the means, or acts in some way to help a suicidal person kill himself or herself.

For example, a doctor writes a prescription for poison, or someone hooks up a face mask and tubing to a canister of carbon monoxide and than instructs the suicidal person on how to push the lever so that they " ll be gassed to death. There are two types of euthanasia: passive euthanasia and voluntary active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is simply ending artificial life support in order to prolong life, by some it is considered good medical practice, and is usually performed on terminally ill patients. Terminally ill patients are those who cannot continue to live without medical technology assisting them, and also will never be conscious or coherent, due to brain damage or other causes, ever again. Active or voluntary euthanasia involves intentional hastening the death of a terminally ill patient who requests to avoid painful and prolonged dying. Active euthanasia is simply the patients request to end their life, either because of endless or excruciating pain, or because they will never recover from their illness or disease.

Euthanasia has become an extremely volatile issue in our society. The question of ethical and legal perspectives bombard patients and their doctors. Within the topic of euthanasia another conflict arises over the most humane way to end one's suffering: passive or active euthanasia. By society's present standards, passive euthanasia is considered more humane than active euthanasia because it is "letting nature take its course". However, voluntary active euthanasia can be more humane for the terminally ill if stipulations and safeguards are made in the implementation of its use. Passive euthanasia as stated earlier involves withdrawing or withholding of life support from the patient, which turns the survival of the patient over to nature and the capability of the body to function.

This practice is defined as a "broad construal of euthanasia" because technically the patient is purposely allowed to die, therefore holding the same principles as active euthanasia. Although passive euthanasia is viewed as morally acceptable because no one actively ends another persons life, the intent is still to end the suffering of a patient whose "quality of human life has deteriorated" says Thomas Mappes in his article Ending Life. In reality there is no moral distinction between the two because as Mappes says, "Sometimes it is even said that withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is active ['pulling the plug'] in a way that withholding it is not, but it is implausible to think that there is an important moral difference between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining treatment". The fine line that exists between passive and active euthanasia is a great canyon for those who are terminally ill. They have no rights over their own body because state laws restrict them from receiving lethal injections from their doctors to end their suffering. These patients suffer extreme pain, and those who wish to end their life through active euthanasia cannot.

Passive euthanasia then becomes cruel and inhumane, but a necessary evil if the patients wish to terminate their life. Some say that if active euthanasia is regulated carefully after legislation, it would be able to provide an alternative for those who are terminally ill, as well as comfort for the family who will not have to watch a loved one suffer in anguish. Specifications should be made as to who is considered as terminally ill. Only those suffering from a terminal disease such as AIDS or various types of cancer and are in excruciating pain would be considered for the process. Those who suffer from incurable diseases or bouts of depression or isolation would not be able to receive this kind of euthanasia because regulations would screen all applicants.

Those in favor of euthanasia think that voluntary active euthanasia should be legal. Voluntary suggests that the patient requesting the service is capable of making this decision based on the severity of their illness. Most proponents believe that any form of active euthanasia should only be restricted to those who are terminally ill and in extreme pain, and only carried out by a health professional. "It is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person that his or her life be mercifully ended in order to avoid suffering and indignity", says Mappes, ... ". Individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others".

Proponents of euthanasia argue that "mercy killing" is necessary because patients, particularly those with terminal illness, experience uncontrollable pain. They argue that the only way to alleviate the pain is to eliminate the patient. But is there a better way? Those who are opposed to euthanasia say yes. In their article Why We Shouldn't Legalize Assisting Suicide, Part II: Pain Control Balsch and Waters write: "The better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely".

They believe that the pain is manageable and can be treated and controlled. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washington Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, "adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients". Some believe that patients are giving up too soon, and aren't trying to cope with the pain or taking measures to ease the pain, they are just looking for an easy way out, which in this case is euthanasia. Balsch and Waters point at that, we have the technology and the medicine to effectively control pain.

While there do exist some barriers to the implementation of that medicine and technology, efforts are being made to remove those barriers. Instead of trying to legalize the killing of patients in pain, the public should be making sure that doctors are taught, and use, effective pain management. Anti-euthanasia activists suggest that we need to recognize that requests for voluntary euthanasia are extremely rare in situations where the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients are properly met. As the symptoms which prompt the request for euthanasia can be almost always managed with therapies currently available, our highest priority must be to ensure that top quality terminal care is readily available. While recognizing the importance of individual patient autonomy, history has clearly demonstrated that legalized euthanasia poses serious risks to society as a whole. Patients can be coerced and exploited, the search for better therapies is compromised and involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows.

Legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia should be firmly resisted on the grounds that it sidesteps true compassionate care, because effective alternatives exist, and ultimately undermines rather than protects patient autonomy. On the other side of the spectrum there are many people that support euthanasia, including people in the medical profession, euthanasia has been referred to as "death with dignity". Active euthanasia for patients in a state of unconsciousness or vegetation, would exclusively be implemented if the patient has completed a living will. If living wills are highly stressed as the only way active euthanasia can be performed for the terminally ill, then those performing the procedure will not be held accountable, according to the Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization. In this case the patient is taking the initiative and responsibility for his or her own body and the patient's wishes should be upheld.

Through a living will, the person is pre-supposing that if illness ever rendered him or her unable to decide a course of action, then the doctors would be able to carry out the procedure because that was the patients intended way to end their suffering. The importance of living wills should be stressed to everyone in society, because one never knows the situation one might be in, in the future. Proponents of euthanasia also point out that an individual has the right to determine what happens to his or her own body. Government cannot prohibit someone from suicide. Instead of resorting to either killing oneself with a gun or pills, or suffering in immense pain after being taken off of life support, one should have the option to end their anguish or their vegetative state by voluntary active euthanasia.

If the importance and necessity of living wills are stressed and certain guidelines are generated for legalization then those who suffered can end their lives in peace. What do the following people have in common: Jeremy Allen, Heaven's Gate Cult members, Mary Bier nat, Kurt Cobain, Elizabeth Mertz, and Hitler? For some reason or another these people and thousands of others each year, decided to take their own life by committing suicide. People do have the right to commit suicide. In most states suicide and attempted suicide are not crimes or illegal.

Each and every year, in the United States alone, there are more suicides than homicides. Suicide is a tragic, individual act. Euthanasia is not about a private act. It's about letting one person facilitate the death of another.

This is a matter of very public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about changing the law and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intentionally end another person's life. This change would not give rights to the person who is killed, but to the person who does the killing. In other words, euthanasia is not about the right to die. It's about the right to kill. With all of the information presented and the opposing sides of the right to practice euthanasia, it becomes very difficult to make a strong stand either in favor or against euthanasia.

As in the case of abortion you are either for or against the practice, but in euthanasia there are many variables that must be looked at and examined carefully, in order to make a decision and each case is different. First of all, in the cases in which people want to take their own life, I believe it should be permissible, after all it's your body and you should have the right to do with it what you want. However, there are circumstances where the patient may not be mentally capable to make such a decision, and family or others should intervene. Making the decision to end your life is a big step, and the medical profession must look at why the patient wants to end their life; it could be for numerous reasons, but if its because their is too much pain, every possible attempt should be made to relieve the pain. There are alternatives, such as Hospice Care which is for terminally ill patients and this gives the patient a nice environment in their last days of life, as opposed to a hospital bed. Another scenario is when the patient is unconscious and will never regain consciousness either due to brain damage or a fatal accident from disease or other causes.

In these cases then the families or doctors must make a decision whether to end life support. I think the idea of a living will is excellent, because it is the patients wishes on paper and their is no question to end their life or not. However in the cases where there is not a living will I believe the medical professionals should intervene and make the decision, after all they are the professionals. There are many different scenarios and each should be examined before make the choice of euthanasia; but when it comes down to the patients wishes they should be followed without hesitation, as stated earlier if a person wishes to end their life they should have that right no matter how upsetting it will be to the family and friends left behind.