Question

write 3-5 sentences response to this post in your own words .

I believe that active voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible as long as it is, in fact, voluntary (I also find active nonvoluntary euthanasia permissible as long as a trusted decision-maker is present). In some cases, I would actually prefer it to passive euthanasia because it would be quicker and (as far as we know) not painful for the patient. In the case of brain death or in other situations in which a ventilator is the only thing keeping the patient alive, passive euthanasia seems appropriate.

However, in cases where patients still possess full awareness, active euthanasia may be appropriate. For example, in the case of Diane, described by Timothy Quill (642-645), passive euthanasia would have been long and painful. She had refused treatment for cancer, but when the time came, continuing to withhold treatment would have only made her more miserable, and she knew this. She also knew she wanted to die with some dignity left. Therefore, she opted to commit suicide with a lethal dose of barbiturates, and according to her family, she passed peacefully (645). I believe that Dr. Quill made an appropriate choice in this situation for two very important reasons. First, it was the least painful option for someone who had no chance of recovery without treatment, which she had refused. Second, and arguably more importantly, it was what the patient wanted. Diane was very clear about what she wanted, and Dr. Quill respected this. Why should he force a patient to suffer when she had made her intentions clear?

It should be noted that I do not believe doctors should recommend euthanasia and ask patients to consent to it. I believe it is only morally permissible if the patient or their proxy has clearly asked for it.

In summary, I believe active euthanasia is appropriate to relieve the suffering of someone who would otherwise die a slow and painful death (both physically and psychologically). As long as the patient has made his or her wishes clear, I see no moral issues with the procedure. I think if the patient wishes to pass in this manner, we should grant that wish.

Edit: I understand that what Dr. Quill did was physician assisted suicide rather than active euthanasia. However, I believe his reasons can also be used to support the case for active euthanasia. I am not a supporter of the intention distinction, and I think the important distinction is whether or not it is what the patient would want and whether or not they consented.

Works Cited

Quill, Timothy E. (1991). Death and dignity: A case of individualized decision making. In L. Vaughn (Ed.), Bioethics: Principles, issues, and cases. Third Edition. (pp. 642-645). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Answer 1

I am in agreement with the suggestion in the paragraph that euthanasia should be considered on a case to case basis. I am not advocating euthanasia for everyone who is undergoing treatment for some terminal illness or incurable diseases but if the patient is not left with any willpower to suffer through and the clinical opinion of the doctor also concurs to the incurability then the decision of the patient or the trusted caregiver should be respected.I see no merit in lingering the pain and suffering of the person and snatch away their dignity.