Posted by TamaraJ on March 1, 2005, at 10:19:49
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » rainbowbrite, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 19:32:46
> A lot of people think there is a clear difference between 'active' and 'passive' euthenasia, for example. The former being unacceptable (not allowed to give lethal injections) and the latter being acceptable (do not resussatate order).
--------
-- It is my understanding that the AMA (although some argue otherwise), Christian churches and some philosophers have accepted the principle and act of "passive" euthenasia but not "active" euthenasia. Maybe I am off base here, but I find the act of "passive" euthenasia a far less humane act. Passive euthenasia is, as I understand it, more than just do not ressusatate. As a result, a person is who being passively euthenized could end up suffering for days, weeks, even months. As somebody said in the thread on this topic on the Relationships board, we treat the family pet better.
Here is an extract from something I had read a while ago. "One of the most cited contemporarly discussions on the subject of euthanasia is "Active and Passive Euthanasia" (1975) by University of Alabama philosophy professor James Rachels. Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between actively killing a patient and passively allowing the patient to die. Thus, it is less cruel for physicians to use active procedures of mercy killing. Rachels argues that, from a strictly moral standpoint, there is no difference between passive and active euthanasia. He begins by noting that the AMA prohibits active euthanasia, yet allows passive euthanasia. He offers two arguments for why physicians should place passive euthanasia in the same category as active euthanasia. First, techniques of passive euthanasia prolong the suffering of the patient, for it takes longer to passively allow the patient to die than it would if active measures were taken. In the mean time, the patient is in unbearable pain. Since in either case the decision has been made to bring on an early death, it is cruel to adopt the longer procedure. Second, Rachels argues that the passive euthanasia distinction encourages physicians to make life and death decisions on irrelevant grounds. For example, Down's syndrome infants often have correctable congenital defects; but decisions are made to forego corrective surgery (and thus let the infant die) because the parents do not want a child with Down's syndrome. The active-passive euthanasia distinction merely encourages these groundless decisions.
Rachels observes that people think that actively killing someone is morally worse than passively letting someone die. However, they do not differ since both have the same outcome: the death of the patient on humanitarian grounds. The difference between the two is accentuated because we frequently hear of terrible cases of active killings, but not of passive killings. Rachels anticipates two criticisms to his argument. First, it may be objected that, with passive euthanasia techniques, the physician does not have to do anything to bring on the patient's death. Rachels replies that letting the patient die involves performing an action by not performing other actions (similar to the act of insulting someone by not shaking their hand). Second, it may be objected that Rachels's point is only of academic interest since, in point of fact, active euthanasia is illegal. Rachels replies that physicians should nevertheless be aware that the law is forcing on them an indefensible moral doctrine."
Rachels arguements were rebutted in "Active and Passive Euthanasia: An Impertinent Distinction?" (1977), by Thomas Sullivan who argues that no intentional mercy killing (active or passive) is morally permissible . . .. In a rejoinder essay, "More Impertinent Distinctions and a Defense of Active Euthanasia" (1978), Rachels responds to Sullivan's charges. (both of which I have only read summaries). Rachels points out that critics have traditionally attacked utilitarianism for focusing too heavily on happiness, and not enough on other intrinsic goods, such as justice and rights. Accordingly, Rachels offers a revised utilitarian version: active euthanasia is permissible since it promotes the best interests of everyone.
And, this debate, which has gone on for centuries, will continue.
Tamara
poster:TamaraJ
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/464856.html