This paper examines the ethical dimensions of euthanasia through the lens of a hypothetical case involving a newborn, referred to as baby John Doe, born with severe neurological and physical disabilities. Drawing on feminist ethics and medical ethics frameworks, the paper distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia, analyzes their legal standing in the United States, and argues against applying passive euthanasia in baby John Doe's case. The discussion addresses key ethical principles including the medical obligation to preserve life, the right to life, and the concept of personal autonomy. The paper ultimately concludes that baby John Doe should be allowed to live and that the decision regarding his own life should be reserved for him once he is capable of making it.
This paper demonstrates the technique of applied ethical reasoning: taking abstract moral principles (such as the duty to preserve life and the right not to be killed) and systematically applying them to a specific real-world-style scenario. The author cites authoritative sources — including the International Code of Medical Ethics and academic texts — to anchor each normative claim, showing how philosophical and professional standards can be marshaled together in a coherent argument.
The paper opens with a definitional introduction that sets up the legal and conceptual landscape of euthanasia. The discussion section then proceeds through four distinct objections to passive euthanasia: future medical advances, the obligation to preserve life, the right to life, and autonomy. Each objection is supported by at least one cited source. The conclusion synthesizes these points into a final recommendation that baby John Doe be allowed to live and ultimately decide his own fate.
Many arguments have been presented both in support of and against euthanasia, with each point of view offering seemingly valid positions. It is important to note that active euthanasia is not permitted in any U.S. state. In basic terms, active euthanasia involves "using certain death-causing means to bring about or cause the death of a person" (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 82). Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, as MacKinnon further explains, "refers to withholding or withdrawing certain treatment and letting a patient die" (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 81). The latter form of euthanasia is permitted in most U.S. states.
Regarding baby John Doe's case, the most viable alternative might initially appear to be intentionally ending his life so as to spare him an extremely difficult existence due to his lack of bladder and bowel control. However, as this paper argues, a closer ethical examination reveals significant reasons to reject that course of action.
It is important to note, from the outset, that "active euthanasia is not legal or permissible in the United States" (DeWit and O'Neill, 2013, p. 200). With regard to baby John Doe, therefore, two options remain: to end his life via passive euthanasia or to let him live. Letting him live presents obvious challenges, including the possibility of a constrained and difficult life. Applying passive euthanasia would involve preventing doctors from inserting the shunt designed to drain fluid from the baby's head and from repairing the spinal opening.
It should, however, be noted that even if these procedures are withheld, baby John Doe still has a slim chance of surviving. If he did survive without the interventions, his life would be worse off than if the proposed procedures had been performed. For these reasons, passive euthanasia ought not to be considered a viable alternative.
To begin with, there is no certainty that doctors will not find a cure or effective treatment for baby John Doe's condition within his lifetime. Such a development would make his life far more bearable, effectively undermining the justification for ending it prematurely. As long as babies like John Doe continue to live, doctors have reason to pursue treatment options with the hope of alleviating the suffering of those born with the condition.
Furthermore, ending baby John Doe's life through an act of omission would contravene one of the foundational principles of medical ethics. According to the International Code of Medical Ethics, a medical practitioner has an "obligation to preserve human life" (World Medical Association, 1983). Doctors who fail to insert the shunt to prevent the accumulation of fluid in the brain would be abandoning this basic obligation. Similarly, failing to repair the spinal opening would amount to hastening baby John Doe's death — an action that cannot be reconciled with the duty to preserve life.
In the final analysis, baby John Doe should be allowed to live. All necessary measures should be taken to preserve his life. If anything, it is baby John Doe himself who should be permitted to make that critical decision — whether or not to continue living — once he has attained full awareness and is able to appreciate the consequences of his choices. Prematurely foreclosing that possibility, whether through active or passive means, runs counter to the ethical principles of medical ethics, the right to life, and the fundamental value of human autonomy.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.