Euthansia

Euthanasia
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Euthanasia
“Is there a morally relevant difference between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia?”
According to Fisher (2009, 167), “euthanasia is the deliberate killing of an innocent person”. In general, euthanasia is classified as either passive or active. Passive euthanasia or ‘letting die’, is whereby medical treatment is withdrawn with the deliberate intention of causing the patient to die. For instance, if a patient needs kidney dialysis for survival and the physician disconnect the dialysis machine, the patient will most probably die fairly soon. On the other hand, active euthanasia or ‘killing’ is whereby the doctor takes specific steps in order to cause the patient’s death, for instance administering a lethal injection. In my opinion, there is no morally relevant difference between passive and active euthanasia.
In arguing that there is no moral difference between them, I mean that there is no moral reason at all of preferring one over the other. The sheer fact that one case of euthanasia is passive, while the other is active, is not itself a reason of thinking one as being morally better than the other. Both forms of euthanasia are morally equivalent in the sense that either both are okay or both are not. There is no moral difference between letting die and killing, and if one is objectionable or permissible, then so is the other. The plain fact that one act is an act of simply letting someone die, whilst another is an act of killing, is not a morally good reason in supporting of the judgment that the latter is worse than the former. The difference between letting die and killing does not make any difference with regard to the morality of actions that concern life and death. If a physician lets a patient to die, for humane reasons, then she is in the same moral position as if she had given the patient the lethal injection to die for humane reasons. In case the decision was wrong, for instance if the patient’s disease was curable, then the decision would be in the same way regrettable notwithstanding the method used to carry it out. On the other hand, if the physician’s decision was the right/correct one, then the method she used is itself, not important.
A moral distinction cannot be drawn between passive and active euthanasia on the basis that one involves letting someone die while the other involves killing. This is primarily because such a difference does not make a difference. If a doctor kills a terminally ill patient, then she is the cause of the patient’s demise, but if she merely lets the patient die, then the doctor is not the cause, since the patient dies of whatever condition he has. Some believe that this is supposed to make a moral difference. From the moral standpoint however, there is no difference because generally, it is definitely not desirable to be the cause of someone else’s death, and it is also generally desirable not to let someone die when we can actually save them.
Others with opposing viewpoints hold that our duty not to harm others is more stringent than our duty to help them. In general, the duty of a physician to patients is precisely to assist them. It is not very clear that killing a terminally ill patient is harming him/her assuming that the patient would be no worse off dead than he/she is now, and if this is so, then killing the patient is not harming him/her. For this reason, it should not be classified that letting such a patient die to be a failure to help. Thus, even if we uphold the view that our duty to help others is less stringent than our duty not to cause harm to them, nothing follows regarding our duties with respect to letting die and killing in the special case of euthanasia. Fisher stated that “One reason why so many people think that there is an important moral difference between active and passive euthanasia is that they think killing someone is morally worse than letting die. But is it?” (Fisher, 2009, 162). There is no moral difference. For instance, from the moral perspective, if Mary kills Rose, and Jane was in a situation where she could have saved Jennifer from looming death, maybe from drowning, but instead watched as Jennifer died without helping her, then there is no moral difference between these two cases. This is primarily because we have a moral duty to protect/help others and not cause harm to others, and killing is not morally worse than letting die.
In the event that the patient requests the doctor to relieve his pain by killing him, then in that case, “the physician is confronted with a request to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide” (Fisher, 2009, 160). Both passive an...