5 of 5

Write now Article Tools

Within Rachel's article Active and Passive Euthanasia' two main points are
raised, namely; passive euthanasia is no better morally than active euthanasia and the American Medical Association (AMA) policy statement is unclear and morally wrong. The first point is demonstrated in several scenarios, including arguing that letting a cancer patient die is no different morally to killing the patient. He believes that the AMA condones passive euthanasia, which in his eyes is the same morally as active euthanasia. Steinbock believes that Rachel misunderstands the AMA policy, stating that ceasing counter-productive treatment is the aim of the policy and it is not advocating passive euthanasia. On the issue of the morality of passive euthanasia, Steinbock does not pass comment upon Rachel's article.

In the first instance Rachel demonstrates his point about passive euthanasia being morally no better than active euthanasia by using the scenario of a dying cancer patient in end stages. The patient has asked the doctor to end it all' because of the unbearable suffering now being endured. In line with the AMA statement (Appendix 1) the doctor can decide to withdraw treatment, otherwise known to Rachel as another expression for passive euthanasia, which would stop the whole process being drawn out. However, Rachel explains that by withdrawing treatment suffering can actually be prolonged compared to taking a more direct action such as administrating a lethal injection. Steinbock argues against this point by explaining that doctors withdrawing treatment are not supporting passive euthanasia they are merely avoiding unnecessary treatment that could cause more discomfort than the condition itself. Therefore, the AMA statement doesn't advocate ending the person's life, it simply means stopping ineffective treatment.

The two arguments both have convincing elements, but regardless of what the doctors
intentions are, it is without doubt that everyone involved will be highly aware that by withdrawing treatment the patient is more likely die quicker compared to continuing the treatment. Whether this is morally acceptable is altogether a different matter. The doctor's intentions appear to be an important factor when making moral judgements. A good example is when doctors administer morphine to act as pain relief. It can, as a side affect, suppress the respiratory centre and shorten the patient's life. The quote below
explains this better:

"A doctor who gave morphine to a terminally ill patient

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Active vs. passive euthanasia ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!