Advances in medical science have helped extend the quantity and the quality of life. Paradoxically, by extending the lives of terminally ill patients, those advances have created a raging debate about euthanasia. Many argue that just because we can keep certain people alive does not necessarily mean that we should keep them alive. This paper will examine the morality of euthanasia.
Euthanasia is defined as "the action of inducing the painless death of a person for reasons assumed to be merciful" (Morris, 1980, p. 453). That broad definition covers three
different situations. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patientÆs
life support equipment is turned off, when food or water is
withheld, or when doctors administer large doses of morphine to
alleviate suffering. Active euthanasia describes the instance
when another person helps the patient end their life. Physician
assisted suicide occurs when the patient's doctor supplies the
means or the information the patient needs to end their life.
Opponents of euthanasia object to the latter two circumstances because, in their eyes, both involve intentional and deliberate acts of killing. As for passive euthanasia, withholding treatment that will not cure the patient is permissible. As J. Gay Williams wrote, "[W]hen a patient's condition is such that it is not reasonable to hope that any medical procedures or treatments will save his life, a failure to implement the procedures or treatments is not euthanasia. If the person dies, this will be as a result of his injuries or disease and not because of his failure to receive treatment." Death is only an ancillary result of either action, not the intended outcome (Satris, 1998, pp. 280 81).
Gay WilliamsÆ opposition to active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide rests on three premises. First, it goes against nature. Second, it goes against self interest. Third, the practical effects of turning caregivers ...