Active euthanasia may sometimes be preferable to passive euthanasia. Being allowed to die can be an incredibly painful process. A lethal injection, however, is less painful. Assuming a terminally ill patient decides he or she does not want to continue to suffer, and a doctor agrees to assist the patient terminate his or her life, surely consistency demands that the least painful form of euthanasia, intended to reduce suffering, is used (Rachels, 1991: 104).
It is often argued that doctors are justified in allowing their patients to die by withdrawing or withholding treatment, but are not justified in killing them. This difference in attitudes toward active and passive euthanasia seems generally accepted by the medical profession. Opponents of active euthanasia rely on the intuitive difference that killing someone is morally worse than letting them die. It is argued that a doctor who kills a patient directly causes the death, but a doctor who withdraws or withholds treatment merely allows that death. In contrast to this view, however, many argue that there is not any real significant moral difference between the two actions. Choosing not to act is itself an action, and we are equally responsible for this. Indeed, as there is no significant moral difference, active euthanasia may sometimes be preferable.
The final section of an argumentative essay on euthanasia should be used as one more opportunity to demonstrate that your viewpoint has merit. Emotions should be professionally hidden when working on the project, for excessive expression of personal feelings may not be favourable at all.
Euthanasia groups appeared for the first time in England and America in the early 20 th century. During the Second World War the Nazis in Germany had their own euthanasia program. They let people die who were not worthy and healthy enough to survive, especially children and older people. Many groups that promote the right to die have emerged in the second part of the 20 th century.
Yes, it is a hard topic to consider, but nevertheless, you MUST have your own clear viewpoint on euthanasia. Make up your mind whether you support or oppose euthanasia. You can create a list of all the pros and cons of “good death”. No need to be in a hurry when picking your side; you have to properly consider the matter from various angles and perspectives. Try to conduct a thorough research in order to find out what the doctors, physicians and The Holy Bible have to say about it. Or make use of the following arguments for and against intentional ending of life – these points can be included into your own euthanasia argumentative essay:
Because active voluntary euthanasia seeks to reduce the amount of suffering of the patients as well as offer individuals greater control over their life it can be justified, and the “Death with Dignity Act” outlines a responsible method for enacting active voluntary euthanasia....
Your task would be way easier if you worked on an entertaining , but unfortunately, you are a college (university) student and you have no right to choose what to write about. Yet, it is still highly important to build up a catching introduction if you really need your essay on euthanasia to be winning. Make sure to start your conversation with the audience with a real-life moving example that proves that euthanasia is a bad (or good) phenomenon. You are to take a particular viewpoint on the issue.
Accepting that there is a distinction between active and passive euthanasia will result in decisions about life and death being made on irrelevant grounds. Rachels (1991: 104) offers the example of two Down Syndrome babies, one born with an obstructed intestine, and one born perfectly healthy in all other respects. In many cases, babies born with this condition are refused the simple operation that could cure it and so die. It does not seem right that an easily curable digestive ailment should determine whether the baby lives or dies. If Down Syndrome babies lives are judged to be not worth living, then both babies should die. If not, they should both be given medical treatment sufficient to ensure their survival. Accepting a distinction between active and passive euthanasia results in unacceptable inconsistencies in our treatment of such babies, and should therefore be abolished.
Some philosophers (Beauchamp, 1982) who accept the arguments outlined above nevertheless believe that this distinction, however fallacious, should be maintained in public policy and law. They believe that consequentionalist arguments justify this. If we permitted active euthanasia, it is argued that this would undermine our belief in the sanctity of human life. This would begin our slide down a "slippery slope" (Burgess, 1993) that would end with us 'euthanasing' anyone seen as a threat or burden to society, as happened in Nazi Germany.
Analysing this argument logically, it seems difficult to see how permitting voluntary active euthanasia, for compassionate reasons, and respect for individual autonomy, could change attitudes to killings that do not demonstrate these qualities. As Beauchamp argues, if the principles we use to justify active euthanasia are just, then any further action inspired by these principles must also be just (1982: 251). If we examine what really happened in Nazi Germany, the facts do not seem to support this sensational claim. A totalitarian system and racial prejudice were more responsible for those tragic events than was any acceptance of euthanasia.
It is often argued that withdrawing or withholding treatment from a terminally ill patient can be justified, while actively killing such a patient to relieve their suffering cannot. The alleged distinction between the two is supported by intuitions that suggest killing is morally worse than allowing to die; however, examples used to demonstrate this often contain other morally relevant differences that make it appear this way. In reality, there does not seem to be any morally significant difference since the motivations and end results of active and passive euthanasia are the same, the only difference between the two is the means used to achieve death, which does not justify viewing them differently. It can be argued that we should nevertheless accept this distinction because it has beneficial consequences; however, these consequences are uncertain, and surely we should instead try to clarify our views of killing and find a less vulnerable position that better reflects our true feelings. We already permit passive euthanasia in some circumstances. Since active euthanasia seems morally equivalent to passive euthanasia, I believe that they can both be justified in some circumstances.
Beauchamp, T. (1982) 'A reply to Rachels on Active and Passive Euthanasia'. In T. Beauchamp & R. Walters (Eds.) Contemporary Issues in Bioethics (3rd ed.). Wadsworth: Belmont.
Burgess, J. (1993) 'The Great Slippery Slope Argument'. Journal of Medical Ethics, 19, pp. 169 175.
Gay-Williams, J. (1991) 'The wrongfulness of euthanasia' in J.E. White (Ed.) Contemporary Moral Problems (3rd ed.) pp. 99-102. West Publishing Co: St Pauls. Kuhse, H. 'Euthanasia', A Companion to Ethics.
Rachels, J. (1991) 'Active and Passive Euthanasia' in J.E. White (Ed.) Contemporary Moral Problems (3rd ed.) pp. 103-107. West Publishing Co: St Pauls.