Active and Passive Euthanasia

Author(s):  
James A. Rachels
Crisis ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Kelleher † ◽  
Derek Chambers ◽  
Paul Corcoran ◽  
Helen S Keeley ◽  
Eileen Williamson

The present paper examines the occurrence of matters relating to the ending of life, including active euthanasia, which is, technically speaking, illegal worldwide. Interest in this most controversial area is drawn from many varied sources, from legal and medical practitioners to religious and moral ethicists. In some countries, public interest has been mobilized into organizations that attempt to influence legislation relating to euthanasia. Despite the obvious international importance of euthanasia, very little is known about the extent of its practice, whether passive or active, voluntary or involuntary. This examination is based on questionnaires completed by 49 national representatives of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP), dealing with legal and religious aspects of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as well as suicide. A dichotomy between the law and medical practices relating to the end of life was uncovered by the results of the survey. In 12 of the 49 countries active euthanasia is said to occur while a general acceptance of passive euthanasia was reported to be widespread. Clearly, definition is crucial in making the distinction between active and passive euthanasia; otherwise, the entire concept may become distorted, and legal acceptance may become more widespread with the effect of broadening the category of individuals to whom euthanasia becomes an available option. The “slippery slope” argument is briefly considered.


2021 ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Tusharindra Lal ◽  
Riya Kataria ◽  
Priyadarshee Pradhan

Euthanasia or assisted suicide has been a matter of contention for many years with various types of euthanasia including voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary, active and passive euthanasia being argued for around the world. This article highlights the types of euthanasia while analyzing the ethical, legal, economical and spiritual dilemmas surrounding them. It also compares euthanasia laws of countries around the world with the Indian stand taken by the Supreme Court in legalizing passive euthanasia. There exists a ne line between life and death. It is the duty of a medical practitioner to assess these situations critically while preserving a patient's autonomy. To deny a person the right to end their life with dignity is equivalent to depriving them of a meaningful existence.


1975 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 153-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
A G Flew ◽  
R G Twycross

2005 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Wasserman ◽  
Jeffrey Michael Clair ◽  
Ferris J. Ritchey

The topic of euthanasia has been a matter of public debate for several decades. Although empirical research should inform policy, scale measurement is lacking. After analyzing shortcomings of previous work, we offer a systematically designed scale to measure attitudes toward euthanasia. We attempt to encompass previously unspecified dimensions of the phenomenon that are central to the euthanasia debate. The results of our pretest show that our attitude towards euthanasia (ATE) scale is both reliable and valid. We delineate active and passive euthanasia, no chance for recovery and severe pain, and patient's autonomy and doctor's authority. We argue that isolating these factors provides a more robust scale capable of better analyzing sample variance. Internal consistency is established with Cronbach's alpha = .871. Construct external consistency is established by correlating the scale with other predictors such as race and spirituality.


Author(s):  
Mykola Polishchuk

Euthanasia is a good death in Greek. According to Wikipedia, «euthanasia» is the termination of a person's life in a quick, painless way. Euthanasia is used in people who have incurable diseases and no longer want to suffer from pain, their condition. The term «euthanasia» was first used by F. Bacon to denote easy death in the 17th century. Since 2020, certain types of euthanasia are legally allowed in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, parts of Australia, and in some of the sUS states. Palliative and hospice care is sometimes seen as a relative alternative to euthanasia. There are two types of euthanasia – active, which involves the administration of a dying person, drugs that cause rapid death, and passive – intentional cessation of maintenance therapy to the patient. Active euthanasia is often considered suicide with medical help, if the doctor gives the patient a drugs that will shorten his life at the request of the patient.. In Ukraine, the actions of a doctor for euthanasia are considered premeditated murder. The coronavirus pandemic has shown that many countries of the world are ready to introduce passive euthanasia, that is, in the event of mass morbidity, not only ideas are spread, but also projects about the inaccessibility of medical care for the elderly in order to save young people, about limiting the hospitalizations of elderly people with a serious illness, which requires mechanical ventilation with a shortage of ventilators and hospitals that can provide oxygenation. The debate over euthanasia revolves around the following issues: people have the right to self-determination and independent choice of destiny; helping the sick people to die may be a better choice than suffering; the difference between active and passive euthanasia is insignificant; permission for euthanasia does not necessarily lead to adverse consequences. Disputes often take place at the ethical or religious level. Opponents of euthanasia defend the right for life under any circumstances, and the adoption of the law expands the cohort of patients with euthanasia and hope for life. Keywords: euthanasia, death, life, consciousness, stroke.


1981 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 667-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Graham

The basic idea motivating this paper is that something can be done intentionally even when it is not done with the intention of doing it. An implication of this idea is that the distinction between doing what one intends and doing something as a foreseen avoidable consequence of doing what one intends cannot be used to exonerate agents for misdeeds.My immediate purpose here is to illustrate these points and show how they pertain to the morally relevant difference between active and passive euthanasia, and to the exoneration of God for the production of evil. In particular, I shall try to show, first, that the American Medical Association's recent attempt to distinguish between active and passive euthanasia is seriously defective. Second, I shall try to show that a popular version of the so-called Free Will Defense of God for Evil is also seriously defective.


Ethics ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document