Dan Brock Voluntary Active Euthanasia

¶ … active voluntary euthanasia the central ethical argument for it. He explains the two fundamental ethical values that support something like active voluntary euthanasia and how such values create a belief that this decision can be made as long as it is decided by the person intending to die. These values are individual self-determination or autonomy and individual well-being.

By self-determination as it bears on euthanasia, I mean people's interest in making important decisions about their lives according to their own values or conceptions of a good life, and in being left free to act on those decisions (Brock, 1992, p. 10). By having the right to understand and identify what is a "good life," people then can have the option to decide if they should die without pain through assisted suicide or other forms of euthanasia, or naturally as the terminal disease progresses.

By exercising self-determination, people take ownership of what happens to them and thus create a favorable argument for active voluntary euthanasia. Brock also includes the aspect of human dignity and the allowing of someone to govern their fate as a means of allowing euthanasia because euthanasia is then supported by self-determination. Individual well-being also comes into the picture because through self-determination, one can surmise what living well means versus not living well.

To die suffering or to die free from pain, euthanasia gives the option to die in a way that promotes a feeling of well-being at least for those arguing in favor of active voluntary euthanasia. 2. Many hospitals stop life support on patients they feel have no chance at recovery. This happens with coma patients, those with severe brain injuries, and so forth. Brock explains that while some may interpret this act as killing, it is not so.

"The first reason is that killing is often understood, especially within medicine, as unjustified causing of death; in medicine it is thought to be done only accidentally or negligently" (Brock, 1992, p. 13). He also explains an increasing acceptance of justification for the stopping of life support because in a way, they are just allowing the person to die, rather than actively killing the person. While killings can be unjustified causes of death, some killings are justified and that is when Brock begins refuting the reasons he gave to justify the act.

He states, it is psychologically uncomfortable to think stopping life support is killing and that is perhaps why it quickly rationalized as the disease killing the person rather than the doctor. Brock then continues by adding whether is acts or omissions resulting in a person's death, some may say killing may not be ethically and morally different from allowing a person to die bring confusion to the matter because a person is actively not doing what could save the person from dying when they allow a person to die.

Brock includes 2 cases as well as a swimming comparison to show how killing may simply be considered the worst of the two and that is why it is frowned upon compared to allowing someone to die which does seem as wrong showing he does not find the reasons adequate for such justification. 3. A.

Brock's response to euthanasia leading to people not respecting or trusting physicians as healers is that in the case of active voluntary euthanasia, patients would not fear the physician would kill them because it is a choice being made by the patient and not the physician. "If active euthanasia is restricted to cases in which it is truly voluntary, then no patient should fear getting it unless he or she has voluntarily requested it (Brock, 1992, p. 16).

He adds that by accepting active voluntary euthanasia could turn into involuntary or nonvoluntary euthanasia is a slippery slope that does not take into consideration the amount of trust a patient has with his or her physician. The relationship between physician and patient must be taken into consideration. Brock ends this response by stating that a physician's duty, the "moral center" of medicine should be respecting the aforementioned two values of self-determination and promotion of well-being.

By giving alternatives like active voluntary euthanasia, physicians are sticking to this "moral center" and giving patients options for their care. B. In relation to costs, Brock states there is a fear of erosion in care of dying patients,.