This document discusses the debate around active and passive euthanasia. It defines active euthanasia as taking specific steps to end a patient's life, such as a lethal injection, while passive euthanasia is withdrawing medical treatment to cause death. The document argues that both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia should be legalized to end suffering, though others believe it violates ethical and religious principles. It examines viewpoints from philosophers on both sides of the debate.

1. 1 Perhaps You Want Active Euthanasia
Perhaps You Want Active Euthanasia
March 12, 2010
Abstract

2. 2 Perhaps You Want Active Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a debatable topic among societies. There are two types of euthanasia: active and passive.
Involuntary active euthanasia consists of a “doctor-assisted suicide” without the consent of the patient. On the
other hand, voluntary active euthanasia is the “doctor-assisted suicide” with the consent of the patient. Both
have been questioned because they are considered unethical by society considering that they violate God’s
command and society’s command. Although some oppose both solutions, others argued that it should be
legalize in order to allow people to stop suffering.
Keywords: euthanasia, involuntary active euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia, passive euthanasia,
utilitarian.

3. 3 Perhaps You Want Active Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a debatable theme among societies that had set disputes over the ethical viewpoint,
whether it is good or bad. This word is defined in the book Philosophy Questions & Theories to be “the act of
killing- or allowing to die – a person or animal suffering an incurable illness or condition”(Paquette, &Gini-
Newman, 2003). Euthanasia has two branches. One is passive euthanasia which is defined by James Rachel,
author of the book called Passive and Active Euthanasia, “as withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate
intention of causing the patient's death.”(Rachels, 1975). An example is stopping the medical treatment. On the
other hand, another type is called active euthanasia. J. Pat MilmoeMcCarrick defines this term in his book
Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (Scope-Noteno:18) “as taking specific steps to cause the patient's death,
such as injecting the patient with poison.”(McCarrick, 1992). Active Euthanasia has become a very debatable
topic especially when the patient makes the choice voluntarily, where the participant is mentally healthy and is a
moral agent, or involuntary, when the patient is not able to distinguish right or wrong do to mental disabilities.
Even though it can be considered unethical, voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia should be legalized.
Patients should be granted the option of whether living or not, or should have someone else take the
decision if they are not capable of choosing. Henry Sidwick, an English utilitarian philosopher, argued that:
“Life's meaning - the outcome of active selection by the individual - is either external (such as "God's
plan") or internal, the outcome of an arbitrary frame of reference, such as having a career goal…only conscious
(i.e., intelligent) beings can appreciate values and meanings. So, life is significant to conscious, intelligent,
though finite…”(Rebman, 2002).
Sidwick suggests that it is human’s autonomy to really choose which the best decision is. People, mentally
capable should be given the autonomy to make a choice that will grant a better life for the majority. Involuntary
active euthanasia should also be considered legal because it is unjust to let individuals with mental disabilities
to suffer society’s exclusion and harm. Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher with a senior position at Princeton
University, proposes the following idea:

4. 4 Perhaps You Want Active Euthanasia
“… euthanizing terminally ill adults and severely disabled newborns. Rather than letting nature run its
course and waiting for newborns with extreme disabilities to die, he has proposed that parents and doctors
should be allowed to choose to kill them by lethal –but painless- injection… Newborns and mentally ill people
don’t have the capability of reasoning and feeling emotions.”(Peter, &Kuhse, 1986).
It is also not adequate to suffer or let others suffer only to satisfy other people. Families tend to keep badly ill
members just to feel alleviated or emotionally complete. In 2008 Robert Latimer, father of a girl who had a
terminal disease, decided to let his daughter die. The man declared to this to the press:
“Latimer told police he did it. He said he loved his daughter and could not bear to watch her suffer from
a severe form of cerebral palsy. So he placed her in the cab of his Chevy pickup, ran a hose from the exhaust to
the cab, climbed into the box of the truck, sat on a tire and watched her die.”(Frayer, 2008).
Are you going to be selfish or will you let your beloved die in order to stop him or her from suffering?
Involuntary and voluntary active euthanasia should be legal although there are many counter arguments that
suggest otherwise.
Many philosophers, religious affiliates, and other people oppose this idea of “medical-assisted killing”.
Most of the ones against any these ideas usually base their arguments under Saint Thomas Aquinas, an
important religious leader, believes. In the English version of the Summa Theologiae the following statement is
made by Aquinas:
“Since organisms strive to survive - suicide is an unnatural act. Moreover, it adversely affects the
community and violates the property rights of God, the imputed owner of one's spirit. Christianity regards the
immortal soul as a gift and, in Jewish writings, it is a deposit. Suicide amounts to the abuse or misuse of God's
possessions, temporarily lodged in a corporeal mansion… If suicide is a statement, than society, in this case, is
against the freedom of expression. In the case of suicide, free speech dissonantly clashes with the sanctity of a
meaningful life. To rid itself of the anxiety brought on by this conflict, society cast suicide as a depraved or
even criminal act and its perpetrators are much castigated.”(Aquinas, 2010).

5. 5 Perhaps You Want Active Euthanasia
God granted life, but if suicide is committed, then the social contract between God and human is broken. This
might be true, yet He also offers autonomy and confer the allowance to make own decision, meaning we can
choose whether to live or not. Ronald Dworkin, an American philosopher of law and scholar of constitutional
law, also expressed his arguments against euthanasia by using his quote used in the Harvard University Press
Conference: “Making someone die in a way that others approve, but he believes a horrifying contradiction of
his life, is a devastating, odious form of tyranny.” Dworkin suggests that those who put others to death are
nothing more than killers or murders and that people mentally or physically ill should not be given the decision
of living or not. Sue Rodriguez, a woman suffering paralysis who ended her life in 1993, counter argued this
statement by claiming in her testament that “law against doctor-assisted suicide violates the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms because it discriminates against people with disabilities who need help to commit
suicide.”(Paquette, &Gini-Newman, 2003). How can it be tyranny if it violates a constitutional law? A third
argument is that there are medical treatments available for most diseases that can ensure a painless life, thus
most of these treatments are expensive and painful. The counter positions for active euthanasia can effectively
set a hard analysis of the theme, yet the arguments in favor are stronger.
Involuntary and voluntary active euthanasia are not morally wrong. They are used to liberate a suffering
soul and allow them to reach final rest. People should not be exposed to harsh treatments or uncomfortable
health conditions, they should be allowed to make a decision whether to live or not. If these are not
psychologically able to choose, their relatives or closest person should analyze what could be best for him or
her and the society. Active euthanasia is not unethical; it is the way to finally get rid of the pain and any other
condition that can make someone suffer.

6. 6 Perhaps You Want Active Euthanasia
Bibliography
Aquinas, T. (2010). The summa theologiae of saint thomasaquinas:
latin-english edition, prima secundae,. London, UK:
Createspace.
Dworkin, R. (1996). Mass.: harvard university press. Google Books,
Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=yeUg-
wglsK0C&dq=ronald+dworkin&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Frayer, K. (2008).Cbc news in depth: robertlatimer. CBC.ca –
Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV,
Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/
McCarrick, J. (1992). Active euthanasia and assisted suicide (scope-
noteno:18). Washington DC: Kennedy Inst of Ethics.
Paquette, P, &Gini-Newman, L. (2003).Philosophy questions & theories. Canada:
National Library of Canada Catalonguing.
Peter, S, &Kuhse, H. (1986). Should the Baby live? (studies in
bioethics). New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Rachels, J. (1975). Active and passive euthanasia. Waltham:
Massachusetts Medical Society.
Rebman, R. (2002). Euthanasia and the right to die. Berkeley

7. 7 Perhaps You Want Active Euthanasia
Heights: Enslow Publishers.