The second reason is that the duty of not killing someone is dischargeable. Third, if we do not succeed in saving a dying individual, we essentially leave open the possibility that someone else might come along and save them. Lastly, some philosophers consistently believe that letting someone die is not as bad as killing because of the difference in the intention behind the two kinds of actions (James Rachel, Killing and Letting Die). Rachel’s argument towards both Active Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia is accurate in the sense that Active Euthanasia is morally wrong and in some cases Passive Euthanasia is acceptable. Let’s take the scenario of the patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat and is in terrible pain.
In this case, Curly is not tied up, so with no intervention, Curly could go about his day without being affected by the deaths of Larry and Moe. In the Switch Case, I would chose to apply the switch that would eventually kill Curly, but save Larry and Moe. This is the most desired choice in this scenario because the greater number of lives will be saved and the nature of the looped track would always result in the deaths of at least one person. So in allowing one person to die and saving two, the best outcome can be achieved. Larry, Moe, and curly are tied to the tracks at the same time but in different locations, so it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two
I think Peter Singer does not like this redefinition of brain death because it sounds like they are doing euthanasia on the patient. One reason why I think that Peter Singer thinks it is not a good way to redefine brain death in that way is because it sounds to me that euthanasia is what they are doing to the patient. To be exact it sounds like passive euthanasia is what is happening to the patient where they are letting the patient die without pain. I think its passive euthanasia because they are removing the respiratory machine from the patient even though he still has some brain functions working and are causing his death. Redefining brain death in that way would make the patients family think that they are killing him even though he still
And that is exactly what confuses the majority of the world. To put one out of misery, either animal or human, would be merciful, but still killing, to which I respond with a very open minded and open hearted approval. It is a murder, it is a crime in other circumstances, but in the right ones it should be considered worldly as positive and
Reiman opposes capital punishment for several reasons. Reiman rejects the retribution rationale because retribution dehumanizes the person doing the punishing. As an alternative, Reiman advocates for humane punishment that is equal in severity, and that does not reduce deterrence. He stresses the importance of equal severity because a lack of equality will send the wrong message to society. Reiman believes strongly that: “[t]he available research by no means clearly indicates that the death penalty reduces the incidence of homicide more than life imprisonment does.” He supports this position for four reasons.
For example, Smith’s personal feelings are further seen in his statement saying “Supporting another’s self-destruction … sends an unintentional but clear message to the person: Yes, your life is no longer worth living; you are a burden; you are better off dead (and we’re better off with you dead, too)” (Smith 8). Smith is basically and obviously testing the reader’s soft-heartedness with this statement by suggesting that one might think this at one point in the chaos of your loved one being sick. It strongly shows that making the best and most accurate choice of care after being done with treatments, that are not working any longer, is critical. Even though Smith disagrees with the care choice that Caplan suggests and thinks there are plenty of better options, Smith is still respectful towards Caplan and doesn’t bash him for his views. Smith suggests and believes in giving terminally ill patients both hope and the care of Hospice.
An alternative to assisted suicide could be commercial assisted suicide (CAS). CAS is when a person who wishes to commit suicide is “treated in a businesslike fashion, for remuneration” (Kipke517). This, essentially, means that an outside person will come do the assisted suicide, however, they will also counsel and accompany the “suicidal person during the dying process” (Kipke517). They provide these services and more, so their payment isn’t just biased on if a person goes through with suicide and they are non-physicians so they have no ties to the medical career or insurance companies that would make them corrupt. If “not physicians but laypersons assist people in their suicides, no breach of medical ethos may be present and medicine cannot be corrupted” (Kipke518).
However, this interchanging use of these terms is strictly not appropriate. While it is acknowledged that there may be no morally significant difference between assisted suicide and voluntary, active euthanasia, there is nevertheless a qualitative difference between them. According to Brock (1993), with assisted suicide, a qualified medical practitioner supplies the patient with means for taking his own life, unlike in the case of voluntary active euthanasia; it is the patient and not the doctor, who acts last. To put it simply, in the case of voluntary, active euthanasia it is the qualified medical practitioner who kills the patient, whereas in the case of assisted suicide it is the patient who kills his or her self (Johnstone,
In active euthanasia a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death, on the other hand in passive euthanasia they don’t directly take someone’s life but allow it to happen. In voluntary euthanasia occurs at the request of someone who wants to die, unlike involuntary euthanasia which occurs when the person is unconscious or unable to make a choice. Indirect euthanasia is when you provide special treatment to speed the patient’s death. And assisted suicide is when someone brings the
However, if it is for God to determine our death, then the practice of medication must have been wrong. Another antagonistic towards voluntary euthanasia often claims that acceptation and legalization of voluntary euthanasia will inevitably lead to involuntary euthanasia. They are afraid that voluntary euthanasia will be abused and misused. Nevertheless, after appropriate procedures and safeguards are installed to offer maximum protection for patients and doctors involved, the rate of involuntary euthanasia have enormously decreased in Belgium and Netherlands where voluntary euthanasia is legal. In Belgium, they together account for 3.2%, 1.5% of all death in 2001 and 2007 respectively In the Netherlands, the rate less diminished from 0.7% in 2005 to 0.4% in 2007.