WRITING ASSIGNMENT 2 BIOMED ETHICS
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Trent University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2390H
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ChiefSnowRam44
1
James Rachels’ Active and Passive Euthanasia
and Daniel Callahan’s When Self-
Determination Runs Amok
both address and provide arguments about the concepts of killing and letting die. In this essay, I will be presenting both arguments against each other before providing my stance based on what the authors each claim. Rachels presents his arguments from a relatively utilitarian lens. Withholding, or discontinuing, treatment for a terminally ill patient or giving them a lethal injection should be
considered based on the outcome that causes the least pain and suffering to the patient. The former, while allowing the physician themselves to be absolved of any direct involvement in the patient’s ultimate demise, still means that the patient is being forced to slowly succumb to
their unavoidable pain without any relief. The latter results in a quick solution for the patient but means that the physician is now technically responsible for a person’s death. Despite this distinction, however, Rachels argues that there is no actual moral difference between the two. Using an example of two separate men and their cousin, whose death would result in a large inheritance for the two men, consider killing that cousin, Rachels describes how the two concepts have no moral difference. In this scenario, smith goes forward with the active act of killing his cousin, but on the other side, jones doesn’t have to as his cousin accidentally drowns in front of him. While he didn’t commit the active act, however, he was still motivated by the same thoughts as Smith (Rachels, p. 310). Callahan, however, does not hold this belief. He states that by equating the concepts of “killing” a patient and letting them die, we would be likening the power held by physicians
to a godly level, as we would be assuming that they are both morally and physically responsible for a patient’s death even if their actions do not directly result in the same (Callahan, p. 314). Just because a physician stops treating a patient if they feel like the treatment is no longer going to impact their chance of survival, it does not mean that the patient’s subsequent death is a direct result of the withheld treatment. Ultimately, the patient
2
would die of the disease living inside their body. Callahan argues that we tend to confuse reality and moral judgement. Omitted treatment would not have any effect on a healthy person but a lethal injection could kill anyone. Ultimately, the patient’s death is not causally connected to the doctor discontinuing their treatment. I believe that euthanasia poses a very merciful solution to horrible and painful situations. If a patient feels like they are at the end of their life and wish to no longer live if it means constant pain that would only end in their death anyway, shouldn’t they be allowed that exit if it’s available to them? Voluntary euthanasia allows a dying person the grace of choosing when and how they leave their lives behind. We cannot simply say that killing is worse than letting die if letting die means a prolonged period of unrelenting pain for the patient.
3
Bibliography
Callahan, D. (2018). When Self-Determination Runs Amok. In J. Fisher, J. S. Russel, A. Browne & L. Burkholder (Eds.), Biomedical Ethics: A Canadian Focus (pp. 312-
316). Oxford University Press
Rachels, J. (2018). Active and Passive Euthanasia. In J. Fisher, J. S. Russel, A. Browne & L. Burkholder (Eds.), Biomedical Ethics: A Canadian Focus (pp. 309-312). Oxford University Press
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help