EUTHANASIA/ASSISTED SUICIDE DEBATE

Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide Debate

Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide Debate

Any discussion of euthanasia ought to begin with an explanation of the different types of euthanasia. As these types differ significantly, it is important to understand the differences between them. Brad Hooker, in “Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia,” describes six different types of euthanasia. Generally, instances of euthanasia can be grouped into two categories: Cases of active euthanasia involve a death intentionally brought about by a patient's physician out of concern for that patient; cases of passive euthanasia, on the other hand, involve the termination of life-sustaining treatment (or the failure to provide or administer life-sustaining treatment), also out of concern for a patient, in cases in which that patient's death could be prevented (or at least delayed) through such treatment. (Braddock 2007)

Thus, six types of euthanasia have been described: (I) voluntary-active euthanasia; (2) non-voluntary-active euthanasia; (3) involuntary-active euthanasia; (4) voluntary-passive euthanasia; (5) non-voluntary-passive euthanasia; (6) involuntary- passive euthanasia. One further distinction can, however, be made. This is the distinction between voluntary-active euthanasia and assisted suicide. Both describe the process through which a person's life is actively brought to an end as desired by that person. “Voluntary-active euthanasia” typically describes the process by which a physician or other medical professional directly ends the life of a patient, as requested by that patient. Assisted suicide, however, describes the process through which a person directly ends his own life with the assistance of someone else. (Brock 1992)

In the case of physician- assisted suicide, the person who provides the assistance is, of course, a physician (Braddock and Tonelli). in other words, in cases of voluntary-active euthanasia, someone other than the patient ends the patient's life, while in cases of assisted suicide, the patient ends his own life with assistance. One of the more common arguments invoked by those arguing against the moral acceptability of active euthanasia appeals to the idea of “playing God.” This argument asserts that playing God is wrong, and that playing God is exactly what one does when taking part in a suicide (either as the person committing suicide or as someone assisting in the suicide). Because the argument is so commonly made, I will evaluate it here. My analysis of the argument will be based on a paper by Fred Feldman titled, “Playing God: A Problem for Physician Assisted Suicide?” Feldman presents the argument as follows: (I) If a person participates in a ...