Euthanasia Vs Ama
Voluntary active euthanasia is defined as actively bringing about the death of a patient with their consent. Voluntary passive euthanasia is defined as withholding or refusing treatment1. I believe that in the debate between James Rachels and Bonnie Steinbock, Rachels is in the right. Rachels believes that the American Medical Association is contradicting themselves by allowing the refusal or withdrawal of treatment, which he believes to be voluntary passive euthanasia, but not allowing the act of mercy killing, voluntary active euthanasia2. Steinbock believes that Rachels misunderstands the doctrine from the American Medical Association and that it is unrelated to euthanasia3.
Rachels’ argument against the American Medical Association’s policy stems from his belief that voluntary active and voluntary passive euthanasia are essentially the same thing. In other words, by withholding or refusing treatment, the patient is expecting death and is intentionally ending their life, and therefore voluntary active and passive euthanasia have the same outcome. The following quote will help better explain this:
“A doctor who gave morphine to a terminally ill patient
in order to reduce the suffering of the patient and foreseeing (although not intending) the earlier death of the patient, would not have broken the law.”4
To show that passive euthanasia is morally no better than active euthanasia, Rachels uses the scenario of a dying cancer patient in end stages. The patient has asked the doctor to end it all because of the unbearable suffering now being endured. In line with the American Medical Association statement, the doctor can decide to withdraw treatment, which would stop the whole process being drawn out. However, Rachels explains that by withdrawing treatment, suffering can actually be prolonged compared to taking a more direct action such as administrating a lethal injection.5
Another reason that proves...
View Full Essay