Types of euthanasia and ethical legal considerations

Euthanasia

The author of this report has been asked to answer a few brief questions and take a position on the subject of euthanasia. The first question will be a definition and distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. The question of ethical issues for each type will be raised. The laws in each state regarding euthanasia will be covered. Finally, there will be a position taken by the author of this report and it will be based on scholarly research from roughly four sources. While euthanasia may be controversial to some, there are some situations where people are going to do what they are going to do and allowing them the easier and more dignified path is the way to go.

Analysis

When it comes to the definition of active or passive euthanasia, the difference is pretty clear. Active euthanasia, as defined by the British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) is when "medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die." The same site defines passive euthanasia as "when the patient dies because medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive." (BBC, 2015). Examples of the latter would be the switching off of life support machines, the disconnection of a feeding tube, the lack of carrying out a life-extending operation or the lack of giving life-extending drugs. The BBC goes on to state that there is a moral difference, at least to some, between letting someone die and actually killing someone. Indeed, many people that deliberately committing an act that directly leads to the death of a patient is less morally acceptable than if the person is allowed to die due to the lack of giving the necessary food, care, or whatever else is necessary. However, other people state that since the end result is the same, there is no difference. Defined another way, the article states that "active euthanasia" is when the doctor or doctors takes a certain action that directly leads to the person's death. In passive euthanasia, they do (or do not) do something that leads to the death of the person. It is a difference but a very slight difference. Technically, if someone is on life support due to having brain damage, the turning off of the machine is technically what kills them even if the chances of recover are slim to none. In terms of ethics, this is the concept of "acts and omissions" (BBC, 2015).

When it comes to euthanasia laws in the states, basically none of them allow physician-assisted suicide except for five in total. Those five are Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana. The first three of those five allow terminally ill adults to acquire lethal doses of prescription drugs from a doctor that is willing to participate and assist. New Mexico allows a terminally ill patient to obtain "aid in dying" following the decision of a judge. The attorney general had a chance to raise an objection but did not do so. Montana does not have an explicit assisted-suicide law but a court ruling asserted that doctors that assist patients in dying (presuming they've attested to that wish) will not be harassed or prosecuted (Barone, 2015).