Essay Sample on Active and Passive Euthanasia

There are two main types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is doing something with the intent of ending the patient’s life. Passive euthanasia (from a medical standpoint) is withholding or removing lifesaving measures. I believe that passive euthanasia is permissible under certain circumstances. Some circumstances in which passive euthanasia is permissible would be when a person is chronically ill with no chance of recovery and a poor quality of life that is rapidly declining, or when a patient is on life support with no brain activity. Passive euthanasia is ethically permissible under certain circumstances. I do not think that active euthanasia is ethically permissible because there is too fine of a line between active euthanasia and murder. 

There has been a question of whether or not we are justified in interfering with the natural course of events. We are justified in interfering with the natural course of events in relation to passive euthanasia. When interfering with nature to save a life by, for example, giving someone antibiotics, the chances of a positive outcome are greater than if treatment was withheld. Society does not typically view ensuring a good death as a positive outcome. It is a positive outcome because it ends the patients suffering and at times allows them to die with a sense of dignity. Passive euthanasia is permissible when there is good intent behind the euthanasia, meaning that it helps the person being euthanized. In the example of the Bathtub Case, the passive euthanasia performed would not be ethically permissible because the wife had a chance of recovery, the euthanasia would not be benefiting the wife, but instead the husband. Active euthanasia is not ethically permissible. In the Trolley Case, the option to push a big man off a bridge would be active euthanasia. When pushing a man off a bridge, the person who pushed them was the direct reason he died. This is not ethically permissible because what makes his life worth less than the lives of others. 

 Pain and rights are very important to consider when thinking about euthanasia. A person who is suffering and will never recover has the right to do something about their pain. When considering someone’s pain, the only person who could make the decision that the pain outweighs the pleasure is the person who is experiencing the pain. The only person who should determine, under most circumstances, whether you live, or die is yourself. Everyone has a right to determine their own fate. Passive euthanasia when thinking of utilitarianism is good if the outcome increases happiness. When a person is on life support and has no chance of recovery, passive euthanasia would be best, according to utilitarianism, because it would increase the overall happiness of everyone when the patient was no longer suffering. When thinking of passive euthanasia from a deontological perspective, it is ethically permissible if the intent behind the euthanasia is good. For example, if the person is chronically ill and suffering, and the intent behind the choice of passive euthanasia is the end of their pain, then the action is ethically permissible. 

 In our lives, we play many roles that affect others, but in the end, our lives should be considered our own. When considering passive euthanasia, the family should be made aware of the person’s wishes but should not be consulted in the way that they control the person’s decision. The decision of passive euthanasia should be one that is based off the patient’s wishes alone, not the wishes of others, whether they are family or friends. Our lives should be considered as belonging to God. I believe that God wanted us to be involved in communities, but our lives do not belong to the community. While the opinions and insights of others could be useful in the consideration of euthanasia, it is ultimately your decision. 

Passive euthanasia is ethically permissible under certain circumstances. It is a justifiable reason for interfering with the natural order of events. If the intent behind the passive euthanasia is good, then, it is not wrong to interfere with the natural order of events. When thinking of pain and rights, only the person who is experiencing the pain knows the balance of pain versus pleasure in their life, and they have the right to determine if they wish to be euthanized. Our lives should be considered our own, which allows us to make the decision of whether we wish to be euthanized or not. The primary reason for my position on passive euthanasia is my belief that people should be in control of their lives. One thing that made me rethink passive euthanasia from this class is the Bathtub Case. I had not considered passive euthanasia as a way to harm a person instead of helping them.