Terminally Ill and Euthanasia

¶ … ethics prepared here, is based on two primary sources, (Callahan, 2012) and (Rachels, 2012). The article discusses the need to legalize and regulate voluntary active euthanasia in the United States (U.S.).

Can We Return Death to Disease?

Callahan (2012) presents medical, moral and metaphysical perspectives to show the differences between active and passive euthanasia. He is of the notion that even though humans, through medicine, may be able to prevent death temporarily; there exist external factors that are beyond our control. Euthanasia refers to the act of painlessly putting to death individuals who are ailing from untreatable diseases or conditions. Some have referred to the act as a release from incurable, painful suffering. However, others argue that euthanasia initiated by a terminally ill patient as amounts to suicide. This is because it is the responsibility of physicians to treat and comfort their patients, not to use their medical expertise to kill them (Wolhandler, 1984).

Essay Outline

The outline below is based on the work by Callahan (2012).

i. In the last few years two arguments have increased the clamour for active euthanasia to be legalised. The first argument is the idea of self-determination -- the idea that patients have autonomy and that they have rights to self-determination including the right to be put to death on request. The second argument tackles the archaic distinction between allowing one to die and killing them. Arguments are made to show that the distinction is simply non-existent.

ii. Those who are against legalizing active euthanasia have been willing to grant the right to death to end suffering and pain in some cases. Yet, at the same time, they are against legalization of the act. This is clearly a case of court-abuse.

iii. The researcher suggests three approaches to help unravel the ambiguities.

A. It is wrong to categorize assisted suicide as practices that grant patients excessive autonomy as many individuals and organizations currently do.

B. Killing has never been allowed as a form of contract between a consenting adult and his physician. Killing is only allowed in self-defence, as a capital punishment and when fighting a just war. Thus, for so long it has been considered immoral and unlawful to allow a person to end his or her life in private even though it would be the considerate option for a suffering patient.

C. Even if individuals were allowed the self-determination to put themselves to death, that does not allow someone else to kill them. No one has the right to put you to death even with your authorization.

iv. Allowing to die naturally is often a slow and painful process (for such patients, under consideration), whereas allowing a doctor to put the patient to death is normally fast and pain-free. The doctrine and literature that would allow a patient, even a baby, to dehydrate and wither, would not allow doctors to give them an injection to end their life without pain, appears so cruel that it does not need further deliberation.