The Two-Sided Topic of Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a hot topic these days. There is, however, a fine line between active and passive euthanasia. The clear difference is that active is illegal in all states (except Oregon) and passive euthanasia is not. Active is when someone helps another human to die. Active euthanasia is two-fold: it can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary is when the person dying and someone else both agree to kill the patient. Involuntary is when the patient is too sick to talk or express desires that their family or someone else for that matter steps in and kills the patient so that he or she does not have to suffer, or in some cases another reason. Moving on to passive, it is the simple and legal procedure that let nature take its course. For example, just letting someone die instead of hooking them up to a life support system like the more conventional way people do things when a patient is sick. Like active euthanasia, there are two ways of doing this, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary is when the patient can express that they want to end their life. Involuntary is when-for example- the family helps someone die so that the patient does not suffer, it is not active because they are not helping them die, but rather letting nature take its course.

Personally, I feel that the intention on euthanasia depends on the situation. For voluntary euthanasia the intention is usually to end the pain and suffering and to let God take His course. James Rachels said on page one in the handout, “To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactory alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request.” And lets him die. In this case it seems to be no ulterior motives, but this may not be entirely true. The family could be in pursuit of the patient’s inheritance and let die for the desire of the money. This is even more especially true in involuntary active euthanasia, where the family may want to have the patient let go in life solely for the inheritance. For me, the intention of euthanasia always depends on the situation, most of the time it is because the family cares and does not want to see a loved one suffer. These feelings can be prevalent in active and passive euthanasia. Same holds true for the want for money, but this desire is most likely to occur in involuntary active euthanasia, where the patient has no say in the matter.

Active euthanasia, in any form, is never morally justified. I feel that killing someone is never reasonable to do. My main argument is that there is no way to prove that someone is actually going to die definitely. By killing them you never give that particular person a chance to survive. At least with a deadly sickness there is always a, although very slim, chance to live.