Euthanasia Ethics: Active vs. Passive and Legal Perspectives

Introduction to Euthanasia

Euthanasia can be defined as the process of helping a person end his or her own life. It may be desired by a person who is already in pain or expects to experience pain in the future due to a terminal illness. It is a concept that goes against the traditional Western code of medicine based on the Hippocratic Oath and Christian ethics, which shaped Western society since the time of the Middle Ages. In today's post-Christian culture, there is considerably more debate about the ethics of euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide has actually been legalized in several states, such as Oregon and California (ProCon, 2022). The primary reason for social support for euthanasia in those states is that voters see it as a way to end the suffering of an individual who is resigned to dying and wants to die as peacefully as possible on his or her own terms (Buiting et al., 2009). Thus, euthanasia can be viewed in negative terms by those who oppose it for ethical reasons and in positive terms by those who support it for different ethical reasons. It is ultimately a controversial and divisive topic.

Active vs. Passive Euthanasia

The difference between passive and active euthanasia is that the former involves withdrawing life support from an individual, while the latter involves administering a life-ending intervention — such as a lethal chemical. Passive euthanasia has more support among physicians than active euthanasia, which some still associate with Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as "Dr. Death" (Vaughn, 2012). The reason more physicians tend to support passive euthanasia over active euthanasia is that passive euthanasia has greater ethical justification within the Western tradition. There is no moral obligation, for instance, in Christian ethics to provide life support that is considered extraordinary or overly burdensome (Holmes, 2007). Physicians therefore tend to view passive euthanasia as more acceptable within the context of the Hippocratic Oath, since death is a natural and inevitable phenomenon and the purpose of medicine is not to delay the inevitable but rather to help the patient return to health when possible.

However, some physicians do support active euthanasia, viewing it through a different ethical lens — namely, the perspective of Ethical Egoism, in which a person's autonomy is considered the most important factor in making decisions (Holmes, 2007).

Personal Ethical Perspective

My own view regarding euthanasia is that it should not be pursued actively, but that passive euthanasia can be accepted. I believe that we have traditional standards and principles that we should follow, and that when we do not follow them, our society becomes chaotic and unstable. The issue of suicide is one that our standards and principles have traditionally viewed as immoral, rooted in the notion that life does not belong to the individual to start or to stop but rather belongs to God. The culture of the Age of Faith supported this principle more strongly than today's postmodern, post-Christian culture does. Yet today's culture also witnesses far more random acts of violence — such as mass murder — than former epochs did. I believe that by moving away from these foundational principles, our culture has lost something valuable and has become desensitized to the preciousness of life. No one likes to suffer, obviously, but it is incumbent upon us as human beings to help ease the suffering of others. A person with a terminal illness should not be made to feel that he or she is a burden on everyone. There is the example of St. Catherine of Siena, who cared for many terminal patients with great devotion. There is nothing truly preventing anyone from following her example other than a lack of virtue.

At the same time, I view passive euthanasia as acceptable because keeping a person alive through artificial means seems contrary to nature. Just because the technology exists to prolong life for a person who cannot breathe independently or feed himself does not mean it must necessarily be used in every case. This type of situation represents a gray zone where no single standard or principle automatically applies; the most ethical approach would be to address it case by case. I would argue that if caregivers are available who can and wish to provide care for the patient, then continuing life support would be acceptable. However, I am also torn on this matter, because it can seem selfish to keep a person alive through artificial means when it appears that natural death is imminent. If I were in that situation, I do not know what decision I would make about keeping or releasing a loved one. It is a difficult matter even to speculate about.

Conclusion

Euthanasia is a topic on which many people disagree. Some states have legalized it under specific conditions, as illustrated by the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, while other states continue to prohibit the practice entirely. Ethical systems offer different perspectives on the topic, but traditionally in the West, euthanasia has not been supported, and most physicians today tend to endorse only passive euthanasia. The debate ultimately reflects deeper societal questions about the value of human life, individual autonomy, and the proper role of medicine in the face of death.

References

Buiting, H. et al. (2009). Reporting on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands. BMC Medical Ethics, 10(18), 10–18.

Holmes, A. (2007). Ethics: Approaching moral decisions. InterVarsity Press.

ProCon. (2022). Historical timeline. Retrieved from

Vaughn, L. (2012). Bioethics: Principles, issues, and cases. Oxford University Press.