Active and Passive Euthanasia



Active and Passive Euthanasia

Introduction

Active euthanasia involves the act of a third party who administers to a patient a lethal substance in order to cause death immediately. In contrast, passive euthanasia reflects the renunciation of drug treatments, the power interruption or artificial hydration or administration of opiates or sedatives in large doses may plunge the patient into a coma and cause death within a few days. The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is considered the most important problem of medical ethics (Alan, 2008). The whole idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, discontinues treatment and allows the patient to die, but never allowed to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. This doctrine divides, apparently, most physicians, as reflected in the statement adopted by the delegates meeting of the American Medical Association, December 4, 1973: "The intentional termination of life of one human being by another - a merciful murder - against you and the intended use of the medical profession and the American health policy Association. The issue of terminating the application of special measures to prolong the life of the body when it is well established that biological death is inevitable, given to solve the patient and (or) his family. The Council and the doctor's opinion should be freely given patient and (or) a close. "

Discussion

Euthanasia is ending the life of a hopeless patient and experiencing unbearable pain for him at his request. Natural products, natural conception and natural death are rare, their value increases. Planning for the birth of children has become common practice.

These issues actively discuss the public of where the technology is widely implemented effective to maintain and prolong life, and where identified cases where doctors have helped to make euthanasia ("aging" European countries, USA).

The debate about the ethical legitimacy of euthanasia in France and elsewhere is probably not in its infancy, despite the recent publication of Leonetti Assessment namesake of the law of 2005 on the end of life. Although the report concludes that there is no need to legislate again to reverse the ban on euthanasia, it is highly likely that the open question in the minds, as shown by the recurrence of interventions in the press and just as many publications. And it is well so be it (Thomas, 2009).

Contrary to what one might be tempted to believe, the law does not address the ethical issues that arise notably in the medical field, but merely give them a framework implicitly authorizing certain solutions, those that are not explicitly prohibited, and laying down specific conditions for the legitimacy of other possible actions. In no way does it tells us exactly what it is good to do in a particular case.

This is precisely why ethical reflection remains very topical and that daily exercise and thoughtful difficult medical decisions remains the preferred way to - eventually - change the law in the long run.

Moreover, in the specific case of euthanasia, the gap ...