EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia

Euthanasia

Introduction

Many authors have distinguished between active and passive euthanasia and considered that the former is morally wrong, while the second is morally permissible. Active euthanasia is to advance the time of death of a patient only at the request of himself or his legal representative, if you have a serious and incurable illness and their expectations for physical and psychological suffering are high, by giving some substance to this without causing pain, allowed to enter a state of unconsciousness that ultimately leads to death. It can also be considered active euthanasia, despite what they say many, is practiced by withdrawing some terminally ill life support, which ultimately accelerates their death. Active euthanasia, as its name suggests, is to carry out some action or to administer a substance that helps to die more quickly and less painfully the sick or taking away a vital support necessary to survive, which also results in early death the patient. Passive euthanasia, however, is not to perform an action, but, rather, to do nothing against a patient who suffers intensely with no hope of recovery. Passive euthanasia is a mere omission; refrain from providing vital assistance to a patient will survive, not to provide the drug or the means to prolong life (Margaret, 1996, pp. 123).

Discussion

Many believe, as I said before, that active euthanasia is morally wrong, whereas passive euthanasia is a respectable practice. The reason for this is that it is judged that there is a significant moral difference between killings and letting die, active euthanasia is killing the patient, while passive euthanasia occurs when left to die. The Moral judgment issued on the much active and passive euthanasia rests, then, ultimately, in a supposed moral difference between killing and the omission of allowing dying. Let us see if all cases of killing are morally reprehensible and letting die morally praiseworthy. Then ask yourself the morality of voluntary active euthanasia (McIntyre, 2001, pp. 219).

The distinction between killing and letting die seems morally relevant when it comes to acts or omissions in relation to healthy people. It is different from a moral to kill a person in good health (but ask me in a moment of depression) to let him die when the time comes. The first would be a murder; the second does not deserve a prize, but not a punishment. However, there are exceptions to that rule; there are cases in which someone is allowed to die as morally reprehensible as killing him. Consider a case where we see a child running toward a cliff and can do nothing to stop it, or if a doctor has received in the emergency room a person seriously injured and can save the leaves die. Moreover, there appears to be cases where a person letting die may be morally worse than his life. Think of a soldier who sees his friend fall seriously wounded and listen to their pleas to kill him, because he knows where to find him alive on the battlefield, the enemy put ...