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. GayWilliams 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 die

. . .
tural lawnamely, the value of life." The only question is whether one of the two qualifying principles applies, which would justify the killing. Second, assuming the patient has committed no heinous wrong, the principle of forfeiture (which would justify killing the patient) would not apply. Third, the principle of double effects (death is the unintended consequence of the doctor's attempt to alleviate pain) does not apply because euthanasia requires the physician to actively cooperate in the patient's death. Therefore, the killing is wrong (Timmons, 1999, pp. 9394). Richard Brandt also believes that killing is wrong. But that is only the starting point for his discussion of euthanasia. He points out that not all killing is wrong. For example, to kill in selfdefense or the defense of another is universally recognized as a moral act. Brandt then inquires into why killing is wrong. He concludes that killing is wrong because it injures another human being and because killing violates the victimÆs preferences (Satris, 1998, pp. 28587). Thus, for Brandt, assessing the morality of a killing requires an analysis of two factors: "(1) whether the killing would be an injury and (2) the person's own wishes and directives." It follows,
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Richard Brandt, , CE Harris, satris 1998, Timmons Ed, American Heritage, satris 1998 pp, killing wrong, active euthanasia, 1998 pp, physician assisted suicide, assisted suicide, friends family, physician assisted, Morris Ed, Satris Ed, euthanasia physician assisted, active euthanasia physician, killing patient, terminally ill, satris 1998 282, passive euthanasia, Memphis Press,
Approximate Word count = 1979
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)

More Essays on The Morality of Euthanasia