Is Active Euthanasia Morally Permissible

Is Active Euthanasia Morally Permissible
Euthanasia is the act of ending a patient's life to alleviate suffering from intolerable and incurable
pain. In this essay, I intend to discuss the reasons why active euthanasia is morally permissible in
some situations, as well as evaluate some arguments against active euthanasia. I believe that active
euthanasia is morally permissible when the patient is in intolerable and incurable pain or suffering,
and gives a form of consent to do so, as all competent human beings are entitled full rights to control
and use their own bodies, as long as the rights of other human beings are not violated.
As stated before, euthanasia is the act of ending the life of a patient to alleviate intolerable and
incurable pain or suffering. Euthanasia can be classified ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The cases where active euthanasia can be administered morally must fulfill two requirements. The
first requirement is that the patient must be in intolerable and incurable pain. To prolong the patient's
survival by putting them through suffering is a violation of the principle of non–maleficence, which
states that health care providers must "not inflicting unnecessary pain, suffering, and/or harm on
patients" (Fisher 20). The second requirement is that the patient must be competent when giving
consent, which can be either in person or in the form of a surrogate. If the patient is determined to be
competent, they may choose to accept or reject medical advice from the physician, as well as offer
their own solution, if no harm comes to others. Going against the patient's wishes will be a violation
of their self–determination and rights. Overall, the two requirements render active euthanasia to be
morally permissible in certain
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Active Euthanasia
From James Rachels' article on active and passive euthanasia, the writer introduced the AMA
statement that talks about the two kinds of euthanasia. For passive euthanasia (letting someone die),
it is morally permissible in some situation. But active euthanasia, which is physician–assisted death,
is not morally permissible. Doctors can retain the treatments under many circumstances, and it is not
wrong if the patient dies, but the doctors can't "kill" the patient. This is known as Conventional
Doctrine on Euthanasia. But the author James Rachels thinks passive euthanasia is not any better
than active euthanasia.
The definition and difference between active euthanasia (killing) and passive euthanasia (letting die)
are: active euthanasia is the patient or someone else made the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Passive euthanasia is under the same circumstance but the doctor retain the treatment that would
keep patient's life on purpose to let the patient die. The intention of passive euthanasia is to reduce
harm and suffering of the patient. From the article James Rachels gave a thought experiment with
Smith and Jones. The "Smith and Jones" case was about Smith and Jones would be able to get an
inheritance if their 6–year–old cousin wasn't in the way. Both of them decide to try to kill the cousin
by themself, so they will be able to receive the inheritance. In one situation, Smith went after his
cousin when the cousin was taking a shower and he drowned him in the bath to make the death look
accidental. In another situation, Jones went after his cousin when the cousin was taking a shower,
but after Jones walked into

Active and Passive Euthanasia
PHI 2630– Introduction to Ethics
April 20, 2013
Active and Passive Euthanasia
Most moral codes state that killing another human being is morally wrong. I would agree that to kill
another human being in the heat of anger, for material gain or in the event of committing a crime
would be morally wrong. But I feel that our moral codes are lacking in certain areas and do not take
into account some situations where killing another human being would be morally acceptable. This
type of killing would be to end the person's suffering only. These cases the killing would be called
active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia "taking a direct action to kill someone, to carry out
a "mercy killing". (Vaughn, 2010) "Passive Euthanasia is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
I would argue in favor for the case of active euthanasia where a patient, bedridden, in excruciating
pain from cancer, to end their suffering. The patient knows they are terminal and they have no
happiness to look forward to, their days are limited to endless pain. The patient feels they are a
burden to their family both financially and physically, as the family members are handling all the
daily care of the patient. If the patient asks for medication to end their life it should be given. It is
not so different than Hospice care, where medications are given to keep the patient comfortable
from the pain. As the pain increases, so does the dosages of the pain medicines, until eventually the
patient slips into a coma due to organ failure from the pain medication or overdoses. The patient is
able to choose the moment to end their suffering if allowed to determine when they would ingest the
medicine. The major concern in any cases of euthanasia would come if a person were in such a state
and had not left any instructions. Would the person want to die in this case? Is there a possibility of
recovery? If recovery is possible, is the personal representative or family member requesting
euthanasia going to benefit from the person's death? Cases such as these give argument to not
allowing either active or passive euthanasia. In conclusion, we know the human body only survives
for a finite amount of time. Our cells are constantly

Active Euthanasia
For this assignment, I will be focusing on the ethical considerations regarding euthanasia. I chose
this ethical event because it caught my attention and I find it very controversial. It is important to
speak up about euthanasia when it comes to your life and death. Some of the ethical issues that
could arise when referring to euthanasia are pain and suffering, illness, doctor's ethical stance,
patient rights, course of actions, and quality of living. I will be discussing three sides of this issue
and why the sides disagree, and the morals and values applied to each side.
Before discussing ethical issues that arise when considering euthanasia, there are important terms
and statistics that need to be addressed. First, it is important to define what the difference between
passive euthanasia and active euthanasia is. Passive euthanasia is defined as the ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This argument may suggest that it should be left completely up to the individual to decide what is
best for themselves and all of those who they may affect in making their decision to end their life.
An argument could be made that this option gives them a sense of autonomy in how they want to
die. Hopefully he or she will make the right choice to live or not for themselves and their loved
ones.
Those who think that active euthanasia should remain illegal, may perceive this process as a
cowardly way of ending a life. This may also suggest that they value innovative tools that allow the
patient to survive, but not necessarily thrive. Active Euthanasia may also be perceived as choosing
suicide. Those that believe that active euthanasia is suicide may also be concerned about the familial
effects of the persons death after they die. Some of the effects on the family could be an immense
feeling of resentment and guilt towards the persons choice to end their life via active

Euthanasi Active And Passive Euthanasia
1) James Rachel, a philosophy professor at the university of Alabama, wrote a paper called "Active
and Passive Euthanasia" where he argues against the distinction between killing in letting die. He
says that the distinction is made on morally irrelevant grounds. He says that the distinction between
passive and active euthanasia should not be based on whether or not wanted more morally
permissible then the other. To prove his point Rachel uses three dif–ferent examples, which included
different circumstance where euthanasia is involved. He looks at each example and argues why
active euthanasia would be the same or even better then passive euthanasia in the situation.
2)
A. The first example Rachel uses involves a terminally ill patient who has been diagnosed with
throat cancer. The patient is in terrible pain, and can no longer treat their pain which medicine. The
doctor realizes that the patient's death is inevitable within a matter of days, even with continued
treatment. Due to the extreme and severe pain the patient no longer wants to live. The patient along
with the support of their family, asks the doctor to "end it all". The doctrine says that the doctor may
withhold treatment but may not give a lethal injection. The doctor is justified in his decision to
withhold treatment because it would be cruel to prolong the patients suffering when their death is
eminent. This is an example of passive euthanasia, because the doctor is not "killing" his patient he
is simply

Arguments Against Active Euthanasia
In 1Corinthians 15:54 and 2Co 5:1 it says that death has been absorbed by the victory. This is
making reference to the dignity of the dying person. The Church, by defending the sacred character
of life in the moribund, does not obey any form of ending physical life. On the contrary, we
researchers understand that the Church is teaching to respect the true dignity of a person, who is a
creature of God, and is helping to accept serenely the death when the physical forces can no longer
be sustained. In a Research about euthanasia described by doctors and pastors, Risto (2013), a Pastor
was interviewed on how he viewed euthanasia, his response was, "I accept active euthanasia ...
Nobody owns us, and because we can always commit suicide we should, in my opinion, also have
the opportunity to die through euthanasia." This is an example that shows that not all people who
believe in God, believe in forbidding someone in pain to die in peace. In the same research (Risto,
2013), a pediatrician said that if the patient is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The vegetative life is not worth living; this means that in order for that patient to even breath he
needs a dozen machines. This lifestyle includes a huge amount of money, that not every family has
access to. As the years have passed technology has advanced, which means that there are a variety
of options to keeping a person alive, but these options go hand in hand with being very expensive.
Keeping someone alive means that a machine needs to breath for the patient, a tube must be inserted
in order to be fed, a catheter must be put in for urinating, among others. This vegetative lifestyle is
painful, not just for the human being connected to a dozen machines, but also for the family that
must watch this person, laying in a bed not being able to say a word, to move nor to enjoy what life

Euthanasia Is The Most Active
Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.
There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee
on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express
intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering". In the Netherlands and Flanders,
euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".
Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non–voluntary, or involuntary.
Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Non–voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries.
Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder. As of 2006, euthanasia is the most active area
of research in contemporary bioethics.
In some countries there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of
euthanasia. Those who are against euthanasia may argue for the sanctity of life, while proponents of
euthanasia rights emphasize alleviating suffering, and preserving bodily integrity, self–
determination, and personal autonomy. Jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal include the
Netherlands, Colombia, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Definition
Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on
usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetonius, who
described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying

Active Euthanasia
There are two types of Euthanasia. Active Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia. Active Euthanasia is
defined as ' causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that
person.' There are many methods that fit under this category. The most common ways are the taking
of drugs and injections. Drugs are prescribed by a doctor that are intended to kill the patient. But
these drugs are not guaranteed to work. Research on Euthanasia in the Netherlands show that the
medication failed to work in 16% of the patients and a further 7% of the patients had side effects
when taking the drugs, such as vomiting and gasping. Injections are another common way to be
Euthanized, this involves two injections, the first to put the

The act of withdrawing or withholding life–sustaining treatment from terminally ill and suffering
patients versus killing such a patient is widely accepted by majority of the medical profession. The
above–mentioned obstructs the killing of a terminally ill and suffering patient recognized as active
euthanasia. Nonetheless, in many cases they already exercising the act of withdrawing or
withholding life–sustaining treatment also known as passive euthanasia. We can dispute the fact that
passive euthanasia can be justified while active euthanasia cannot in a number of two ways. The
initial way relies on the perception that killing someone is morally worse than letting him or her die.
It is widely disagreed upon that, a doctor who kills a patient ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Both will inherit a large sum of money of their 6–year–old cousin dies. Smith drowns his cousin in
the bathtub and then makes it look like an accident. Smith walks in just as his cousin falls face first
down in the water, now he has no need to drown his cousin. If we perceive Smith and Jones actions
to be morally culpable then we should equally see no moral difference between the behaviors of a
doctor implementing active euthanasia and a doctor implementing passive euthanasia .
When doctors believe they are working in the patients' best interests and the same outcome is the
patient's death. I do not believe the approach used to make any disparity to the morality of
euthanasia. A doctor who ends a course of treatment because it is not thought to be in the patient's
best interests and anticipates the patient will die because of this, does not propose his/her patient's
death. However, the doctor terminates treatment aware that the patient will die.
In this case the doctor has made an educated verdict that this is the better course of action. The
doctor who knows this, and nonetheless stops treatment has expedited the death of the patient
proportionate to the doctor administering a lethal injection. It is irrational to separate the choice to
stop treatment from the awareness that a patient will die when it is

Active Euthanasia And Passive Euthanasia Essay
Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today's society on whether or not it
should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject
due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be
considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an
autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased,
and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different
opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors
manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.
In James Rachel's article Active and Passive Euthanasia, James provides the argument that there is
no difference between active and passive euthanasia because in the end, either through inaction or
action, it both results in death and there are no moral differences in 'killing' or 'letting die'. Rachel
provides several different arguments to support his case including a patient dying of terminal cancer,
and two uncles and the death of their nephews.
In his first argument Rachel's talks about a patient who is dying of terminal cancer in the lungs that
is too advanced that even extensive treatment doesn't alleviate the pain anymore1. Rachel's argues
that given the patients request to end his suffering, the doctor

Pros And Cons Of Active Euthanasia
Introduction: In this paper I am going to argue that passive euthanasia is moral but active euthanasia
is not moral. Passive and active euthanasia differ by the way in which the death occurs. It is okay to
withhold a treatment from a patient when the patient's life is depending on a machine or treatment.
However, it is not okay to give someone something that will cause their death just because they're
going through a temporary rough time if the person is still capable of living without depending on a
machine. There is a difference between killing and letting die because action is needed to kill but not
to let someone die. There are arguments against my belief of what is moral but I will explain why
active euthanasia is not moral.
Analysis: Callahan's argument concludes that physicians should only help patients get healthy but
not kill them, and that we confuse alleviation of pain and death. "Many millions of others have
undergone all kinds of personal tragedy... but most of them do not turn to suicide" (Callahan, 83).
Life consists of ups and downs, and there are times when it a person might lose all hope so they
think death is the best option for them. People are always seeking to get out of misery and they
confuse themselves thinking death is the only way out. The people who chose death as a way out are
a minority because majority does not accept death as a good way out unless it is a case similar to
passive euthanasia. "The movement to empower physicians legally to take the

Active Euthanasia In Australia
Introduction
Euthanasia is one of the greatest bio–ethical issues of contemporary times. In recent years the
relevance of the issue of euthanasia has increased within Australia, however euthanasia has always
been a controversial issue. Through history specific culture believed in the importance of dying with
dignity. However as time has progressed more western cultures have moved away from this
ideology, with many opposiong the active or passive ending of someones life due to religious or
societal beliefs.
Hypothesis
Australia's current political and legal stance on Euthanasia reflects that of the natural law paragidm,
however Australia would benefit greatly by adapting to the less conservative and more accepted
utalitiarian approach to the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Their life is seen as stewardship not absolute autonomy. According to Catholic Bible, no one should
ever choose to end their own life or end another life of another. The second Vatican Ecumenical
council reaffired their postion on human dignity and his or her way to lofe. They condemned crimes
against life "such as murder, geneocide, abortion, euthanasia or willfull suicide" (John Paul II, 1995)
[Appendix 3] The catholic churches ethical princiapls are clearly aligned with those of the natural
law paradigm. Unlike other Christian churches, The catholic church has remained conservative and
constantly against anything that they believe violatets the sanctity of

Active Euthanasia
Active Euthanasia Active euthanasia is also known as voluntary euthanasia. It is deliberately taking
the steps to terminate the life of another person. An argument is that medication is meant to help
control pain and make an individual feel better, not end their life. Although this form can be either
voluntary or involuntary, active euthanasia is considered murder in Canada. Applicable cases
include Rodriguez (1993), and Bodkin Adams (1957). "Since the Rodriguez case was decided,
important developments in other jurisdictions appear to demonstrate that it is possible to permit
physician assisted suicide under strict legal controls, and to do so without the widespread abuses
feared by those who support an absolute prohibition on the practice."

Active And Passive Euthanasia Summary
In his paper, "Active and Passive Euthanasia", James Rachels argues that both active and passive are
morally permissible and that the American Medical Association policy that supports the
conventional doctrine is unsound. Rachels starts by indicating that the conventional doctrine is the
notion that passive euthanasia is accepted in certain situations, while active euthanasia is forbidden
in all situations. Rachels uses four arguments to demonstrate his opinion: active euthanasia is more
humane than passive euthanasia (Rachels 1); the decisions lead by the conventional doctrine is
based on irrelevant grounds (Rachels 1); the difference between killing and letting die as no moral
importance (Rachels 1); and the invalidity of the most common arguments that support the ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Rachels uses two cases that are similar, but have a single difference, to distinguish between the types
of euthanasia. In these two hypothetical situations, Smith and Jones gain to receive an enormous
amount of money if something was to happen to their 6–year–old cousin. Both Smith and Jones
enter the bathroom with the intention of killing their cousin. Smith actually drowns the kid and
makes it look like and accident, while Jones witnesses his cousin slip, hit his head, and land face
down in his bath. Jones does nothing to save him; he just waits and watches. The difference between
these two cases is that in the first one, Smith kills his cousin. In the second one, Jones just lets him
die. Rachels state that there is no moral difference between these two cases because both of them
went into the bathroom with the intention to kill and thus, letting a suffering patient die via active or
passive euthanasia has no moral distinction between them, since the intention behind both methods
are the same. Rachels also says that withholding treatment is in fact an action to kill because the
doctor decides not to give

According to David Theo Goldberg, "Euthanasia involves terminating the life of an ailing person in
order to prevent him or her further suffering" (459). The ending of one's life should only be a last
resort after having unbearable and untreatable illnesses. Euthanasia is classified into two categories
which are active and passive. Goldberg also refers to active euthanasia as the ending of one's life by
administering a lethal treatment, while passive euthanasia is withdrawing treatment that may
preserve life. More so, both active and passive euthanasia is classified into broader categories
Voluntary, Non–Voluntary and Involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia must be requested by the patient,
Involuntary are made by an indirect preference and Non–voluntary is neither requested or consented
to.
While it is evident that both forms of euthanasia results lead to death, I am more so a strong
supporter of active euthanasia because in many instances a patient decisions are conveyed
(voluntary) either physically or verbally. Many patients that experience passive euthanasia are not
able to communicate when attached to a machine because the conditions are way worst where they
know nothing about what is happening (non–voluntary). Euthanasia is a moral choice because
people should be able to act on their own sovereignty as they have their own view of life and death,
they know the consequences and they know their rights. Many people have their own beliefs as it
relates to life and death. While

Legalizing Active Euthanasia
Ethics
Euthanasia is the act of killing a patient who is undergoing a very serious painful disease that can't
be cured. The killing process involved does not involve any pain. There are different classification
of euthanasia; involuntary and voluntary, non–voluntary, passive and active euthanasia. Active
euthanasia refers to the painless killing of a patient using poison. It is done by administering any
poisonous injection to the hopeless patient (Wennberg 175).
People across the world, including the Americans, view the theme of active euthanasia differently.
Some oppose while others propose depending on the issue at hand. Basing on the arguments, it
mostly depends on the effects that come out from it. I argue that the justification of ... Show more
Death should not be planned by anyone instead we should wait. More so, suicide is against God's
wish.
Now, focusing on being against the legalization of active euthanasia, based on most research, I
found there are principles stated. This includes the principle of protecting and preserving life of a
human is against legalizing it. Most of the governments work against committing suicide such as
abortion (Wennberg 137).
There will be an injustice involved if it is legalized. Not all patients will offer to undergo through the
process. However, others prefer to wait for the death that was ordained by God. Therefore, they will
suffer from injustice resulted from the authority who enjoys it. Research says that not all people
suffering would prefer that silent suicide (Keown 266). Thus, they provide a solution of waiting.
Let us base our research conducted by a psychiatrist. Most of the patients are left with a huge burden
of choosing the best option to fall on it. Therefore, the patients suffer more due to the pressure in
which they are involved. Patients having active euthanasia in mind suffer individual conflicts. In this
case, active euthanasia viewed as an immorality in the society. Research says that most of the
patients loved ones suffers greatly. They always ask themselves questions like, what if we could
have left him to wait for death ordained by God. Therefore, these people

Active Euthanasia Research Paper
I support euthanasia from the perspective of both having personal autonomy and maximizing my
personal happiness of having an element of control. I also want to state that I oppose the medical
field and its acceptance of passive euthanasia. Through research for this paper I have come to
believe that passive euthanasia creates unnecessary suffering and therefore I feel is not as morally
permissible as active euthanasia. The belief of letting nature run its course is absurd to me when we
have the means to minimize or even eliminate suffering all together. The fact that physicians and
family members are fine with withholding food and water to hasten death through infection or the
patient dies of mal–nutrition is cruel to me. The fact that active

Active Euthanasia Argumentative Analysis
In his article published in 1975, James Rachels seeks to pose an unsound difference between passive
and active euthanasia, and explains a strong case as to how these two are essentially the same thing
when it comes to committing murder. One can argue both cases: according to the American Medical
Association "The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another– mercy killing–
Is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the
American Medical Association" to which Rachels makes several strong arguments against this
principle throughout his article. First, he explains to cases that seem very similar with one exception
each: The first case is about Smith, who is seeking personal ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In more simple words, the theory suggests that hedonism explains how humans are wired to desire
pleasure and that life is about enjoying those pleasures without any regards about the outcome.
Hedonism seems to be only focused on good and personal benefits and enjoyment and that anything
that does not provide that happiness is not of any intrinsic value and pain should be avoided in order
to live happily. Talking about hedonism, several examples come to mind. First, I think about people
that enjoy gambling. These people go to casinos and keep on spending money until there is the
pleasure of "winning" but that can be argued. They are putting money in the slots and just hoping for
a win, but at the same time addicted gamblers enjoy pushing buttons and pulling levers– which is
the pleasure they get out of it– but by the time the gambler starts losing the money, the event starts
to get

Pros And Cons Of Active And Active Euthanasia
Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is defined by Dictionary.com as, "the act of putting to
death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal
suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition." Euthanasia can be separated
into two forms, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when a healthcare professional administers a
lethal injection to a patient for a quick, painless death, whereas, passive euthanasia is the withdrawal
of medical treatment from a patient by a healthcare professional. A common argument is that active
euthanasia is morally worse than passive euthanasia. I disagree with this argument and feel that
active euthanasia is morally no different from passive euthanasia because both produce the same
results with the same intentions despite their method of action. James Rachels, a well–known
philosopher and author of "Active and Passive Euthanasia," also believed that there are no relevant
differences in terms of the morality behind active and passive euthanasia. Rachels objected to this
common argument by claiming, "If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same
moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons." The American
Medical Association (AMA) also has an opinion on the matter with a policy claiming that active
euthanasia is "contrary to that for which the medical profession stands." In "Active and Passive

In "Active and Passive Euthanasia", James Rachels argues that, morally, active and passive
euthanasia are the same. Rachels' strongest argument for this claim is that killing is not worse then
letting one die. Since active euthanasia is killing and passive euthanasia is letting one die, morally
active and passive euthanasia are the same (Rachels, 1997). I intend to argue that this argument fails
because factors such as intent and cause of death play a role in passive and active euthanasia and
when these factors are present it can be said that active and passive euthanasia are not the same and
in fact active euthanasia is morally worse then passive euthanasia.
In "Active and Passive Euthanasia" James Rachels believes that neither passive nor ... Show more
In active euthanasia the intent is to cause immediate death whereas in passive euthanasia the intent
is to allow physiology to take its course and not interfere with the dying process. Therefor giving a
different cause for death such as killing versus letting one die. In that of active euthanasia, the doctor
is solely responsible for causing death, whereas in the passive euthanasia, physiology is responsible
for causing death and the lack of actions of the doctor did not aid or hinder this process. If the intent
and cause of death are not the same, morally they cannot be the same. Morally, it is not wrong to
allow the dying process to occur, in fact it is permissible, what is wrong to intervene with the course
of nature and hasten this process. Therefore morally, active euthanasia is worse then passive

Essay On Voluntary Active Euthanasia
Voluntary active euthanasia refers to an intentional and persistent request by a clearly competent
patient for aid in dying. As a result, the patient of the person acting on behalf of the patient, for
example, a family member or physician, takes active measures to hasten the death by either self–
administration, administration by a tier, or the provision of a means. In voluntary active euthanasia,
the assistant acts last. However, scholars, such as Daniel Callahan does not support any social policy
concerning voluntary active euthanasia, since it results in an equality of power by putting a patient's
life and death in the hands of another person, which violates human dignity.
Callahan notes that self–determination alone should not form a basis for carrying out voluntary
active euthanasia, a point he supports by comparing such act with slavery and dueling. In this case,
Callahan explains that people's lives are not pieces of property, to be alienated or given away if the
price is right. By agreeing to voluntary active euthanasia, an individual gives up their life and fate to
another person, just like in slavery. Regarding dueling, competent persons should not bear the power
to kill each other. As such, it is unjustifiable to make decisions which threaten the ... Show more
Therefore, as the case in slavery and dueling, another person, regardless of their status in society,
gains power over another's life. Consequently, voluntary active euthanasia, as Callahan explains
amounts to an inconsistency between the moral reasons for accepting and legalizing euthanasia,
abuse of the law, and complexity in creating and enforcing the law. Abuse, thus emanates from
people's disregard for the law. As such, physicians are given the power to decide whether life is
worth

The Pros And Cons Of Active Euthanasia
The conventional doctrine endorsed by the American Medical Association states that passive
euthanasia (letting die) is morally permissible. However, active euthanasia (assisting patients die) is
never morally permissible because it's like killing the patient instead of letting the patient die
naturally. Active euthanasia is taking a direct action to kill a patient and on the other hand, passive
euthanasia is withholding treatments to let the patient die (letting die). Rachels (1975) disagrees
with the American Medical Association because he supports active euthanasia contrary to the
position of this body. According to Rachels, active euthanasia reduces the pain of the patients who
would otherwise die even without the injection. In other words, there are no significant differences
between letting a person die and killing a person, who will still perish in the end. Rachels refutes the
claim of the American Medical Association that does not support intentional termination of the life
of the patient or what is referred to as mercy killing. In her view, doctors only uphold their legal
mandate by not engaging in the mercy killing and ignoring their moral duty to ensure the patient die
without pain. The doctors only seek to avoid legal responsibility by letting the patient die instead of
killing the patient. Alternatively, passive euthanasia allows the patient to die naturally while the
active one requires the doctor to take action to terminate the life of the patient. As such, by

Active Euthanasia
The purpose of this paper is to define and address various components and perspectives of active
and passive euthanasia. Components include the conflict of approach and history, legal and medical
point of views towards the topic in the United States, as well as, euthanasia in other countries of the
world. In addition, we will address euthanasia from a moral absolutism perspective, from the
utilitarian perspective, religious perspective; euthanasia from respect for rights perspective; Finally,
this paper will end with my my personal conclusion regarding euthanasia.
The word euthanasia comes from two Greek words, "eu" meaning "good" and "thanatos"meaning
death". The passive form of euthanasia, means withholding treatment that would lead to ... Show
In the period of time from 500 BC–16th Century AD, ancient Greeks and Romans, before the
introduction to the Christianity tend to support euthanasia in various forms, including mercy killing
and suicide. Although, it has to be noted that opposition came from physicians and "the Hippocratic
Oath prohibited doctors from giving 'a deadly drug to anybody, not even if asked for". In the period
from the 12th Century to the 15th Century, the ascendancy of Christianity with views of life as a gift
from God, forbid euthanasia in all forms. During the 13th century, Jewish and Christian thinkers
also opposed to euthanasia, bringing explanation that "it violates God's authority over life" and these
views lasted through the periods of the Renaissance and Reformation. In the 17th century, in the
American colonies, common laws prohibited suicide or assisted suicide. In Europe, in 17–18
centuries, some writers attempted to question church authority regarding euthanasia and suicide, but
it was rather single incidents that did not bring much attention of the public (Procon.org,

Morgan Fille
PHI2604
9/30/2016
Active and Passive Euthanasia by James Rachels
Euthanasia. When people think of this word they think of being out to rest, being put out of misery,
and death. And that's fine, because tat is what euthanasia is. but, when we talk about euthanasia with
humans the definition turns into immoral, murder, and doctors are killers. What these nay–sayers
don't see is that this procedure helps many terminally ill people. There are two main types of
euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when a medical professional or some other
person does something on purpose to deliberately kill the patient, whereas passive euthanasia
happens when a patient dies because the medical professional doesn't do something necessary to
keep a patient alive, or if the medical professional stops doing something that is keeping a patient
alive. In the reading Active and Passive euthanasia, the author, James Rachels argues that active
euthanasia is not any worse than passive euthanasia. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Rachels' first argument is that a patient has and is dying from incurable cancer, the patient in in
unbelievable paying and is terminal. This first argument is against the AMA's doctrine and Rachels
is saying that "letting a patient die" is worse for the patient than it is to kill them. I agree, and in my
opinion, why is it OK according to the AMA for a doctor to let a patient die versus killing them? If a
patient is going to die regardless how is it more permissible to dehydrate them or make them suffer
to death? No matter what, the patient is going to be dead but, the AMA makes it a requirement to
suffer before

Active Voluntary Euthanasia
The democracy of The United States should legalize active voluntary euthanasia (AVE), active non–
voluntary euthanasia (NVAE), and physician–assisted suicide/death (PAS/PAD), in cases where the
patient has a terminal illness, unbearable pain, or is in a vegetative state without a chance of revival.
Currently, AVE, NVAE, and PAD are illegal, with exceptions of PAD being legal in California,
Oregon, Vermont, and Washington State by legislation, and Montana by court rulings . In these
states, AVE and NVAE are sometimes included with PAD, but it can vary, as Oregon and
Washington have Death with Dignity (DWD) acts, Montana passed a law after the Baxter v.
Montana case, and Vermont added it to their act of "End of Life Choices". AVE is defined as ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Robert H. Williams, a JAMA contributor stated that it was peculiar that "we [justify] homicide in
self–defense...and in...wars" but turn around, find it completely wrong and unethical to end the life
of a person, who is enduring suffering . Generally, we can assume that yearly, the number of people
who die in war or self–defense, who are not blatantly asking for death, are roughly equal to those
who would choose AVE, NVAE, or PAD. JAMA also published an article written by William P.
Williamson in which he discussed euthanasia, he poses the question: "should we not be able to do
something for a loved one that we can do for a dog?". If our morals condone killing a person in
specific ways, in self–defense, or in wars, how can we justifiably deny consenting patients the right
to a quick and relatively painless death? I see it like this: I put both of my dogs down in 2012,
therefore, taking their lives without their consent. How can I justify ending my lifelong best friend's
life without following my grandmother's wishes of doing the same? Why is one socially accepted
and the other illegal? Laws against assisted suicide have been found to be "...forcing suffering
patients to endure torture at the end of life,". The main use of euthanasia in animals is to allow them
to die as peacefully as possible, which is the goal of doing the same in humans. Morally, most
people stand on a distinct side in terms

Active Euthanasia And Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia
Active euthanasia is also known as "assistant suicide." Euthanasia is usually used for people
suffering from terrible pain and incurable disease. Some people relate euthanasia to suicide.
However, euthanasia is very different than suicide and taking someone off their life support. I
believe active euthanasia is better than passive euthanasia and will demonstrate my opinions. The
different between active euthanasia from passive euthanasia is let the patients less suffering, less
painful.
Active euthanasia is doctor assisting the patient to die. His or her doctor determines the patient
illness; if it is very bad and there is no cure for the patient, and if the patient wants to end their life
by injected drug into their system, it is the patient's desire to choose when, time, method of their
death. The doctor is only to assist the patient's death and support the patient's desire.
Passive euthanasia is no one kills the patient and lets nature and God decide when and how they die.
However, I believe active euthanasia should be the norm. There must be guidelines and
circumstances to warrant active euthanasia. If not, it is simply suicide. Either way the patient is
going to die, so it is doesn't matter if it is active or passive euthanasia, but the good thing about
active euthanasia is to give the patient a chance to choose and to stop them from horrible pain and
suffering and make their death faster and painless rather than to keep the patient alive and watch

Euthanasia, also known as voluntary or assisted suicide, is used for terminally ill patients to end
their lives instead of undergoing painful treatments and torment of waiting for death. There are,
however, two different ways in which A can bring about B's death. In this essay I will present the
distinction between active and passive euthanasia as explained by James Rachels in his article called
"Active and Passive Euthanasia". I will also debate whether euthanasia is justified or not by
presenting arguments both pro and against euthanasia including pain and financial burden as
justifications for euthanasia and abuse of rights as against euthanasia.
The major distinction described by Rachels would be, simply put, killing and letting die. ... Show
Rachels argues "To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer
of the throat is in terrible pain... This fact provides strong reason for thinking that... active
euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse." (Rachels, 78)
Rachels argument is that there is no moral difference between actively killing a patient and passively
allowing the patient to die.
For example, killing Joan benefits Bill. Whether Bill kills him directly or lets him die doesn't affect
the morality of the situation. Thus, both the situations would be considered equally immoral. The
conclusion following the example above would be that there is no difference between killing (active
euthanasia) and letting die (passive euthanasia). According to Rachels, accepting that there is a
distinction between active and passive euthanasia would result in decisions about life and death
being made on irrelevant grounds. For example, autistic infants sometimes have correctable
secondary problems, such as having an intestinal obstruction; but decisions are made to forego
corrective surgery (and thus let the infant die) simply because the parents do not want the burden of
having an autistic child. In Rachels opinion, passive euthanasia may generally be preferable to
active euthanasia which doesn't seem right. Being allowed to die can be an incredibly painful
process. A lethal injection, however, is less painful. Assuming a terminally ill

Voluntary Active Euthanasia Essay
What is morally permissible? Voluntary Active Euthanasia is a controversial subject, Does one have
the right to end their own life? According to Peter Singer in "Voluntary Euthanasia: A utilitarian
Perspective," Voluntary Active Euthanasia is morally permissible under certain circumstances. If and
only if certain requirements are met by certain parties can the process of voluntary active euthanasia
be completed. Certain situations where Voluntary Active Euthanasia is morally permissible include;
mental illness and terminal illness. The first case would be a 50 year old woman who is severely
depressed with no physical illness. This woman has suffered her whole life from depression, taken
numerous treatments and has failed to find a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Both of these punishments automatically give up ones freedom with one returning it and the other
not. Who is to say that capital punishment and euthanasia both do not take away freedom, with one
being voluntary and the other not. Current society believes that killing is bad. If we say that killing a
human being is okay then what kind of message will we be sending? In another argument Singer
states: ...killing can lead to fear and insecurity in those who learn of the risk to their own lives, is
transformed into a reason in favor of permitting killing, when people are killed only on their request.
For then killing poses no threat.#
Killing someone without their consent is completely unlike killing someone with their consent.
Walking down the street and believing that murdering someone is morally permissible when it is
not, is incorrect. Voluntary Active Euthanasia is ending a life filled with pain and suffering. Living a
life full of pain and suffer is not a life worth living. Legalizing euthanasia will not send out the
message that killing will be okay, instead it is insisting that it is ones choice to do with their life as
they please. The premises of Peter Singer's paper is, "when killing is, and is not, wrong." He is
stating the circumstances under which

The Argument Of Active And Passive Euthanasia
Tyisha Webster
April 25, 2015
Applied Ethics
Professor Cobb
Project # 3
This essay will aim to focus on the arguments that author, James Rachel's presents in his article,
Active and Passive Euthanasia," In his article Rachel's argues that both passive and active
euthanasia are morally permissible and the doctors that is supported by the American Medical
Association(AMA) is believed to be unsound. In this paper I will offer a thorough analysis of
Rachel's essay then so offer a critique in opposition of his arguments. In conclusion I will refute
these oppositions claims by defending Rachel's argument, and showing why I believe his claims that
both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, to be effective.
According to Webster's dictionary the term euthanasia Is defined as, " the act or practice of killing
someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering." Now then there are two
primary types of euthanasia according to Rachel's. We have Passive Euthanasia in which the
physician does nothing to bring about the death of the patient. By this physician doing nothing,
ceasing treatment, the patient dies of the illness he already was diagnosed with. The patient dies of
natural causes. The doctor is therefore letting the patient die. Then we have Active Euthanasia were
the physician does something to bring about the death of the patient. The physician gives the
terminally ill patient a lethal injection therefore now making the doctor the

In Rachel's "Active and Passive Euthanasia" he explores how the perception of the difference
between active and passive euthanasia has no ethical weight. The American Medical Association,
quoted by Rachels in his argument, justifies passive euthanasia via 'comfort care' or the cease of care
as something that could be deemed as ethically acceptable, medically speaking as the physician is
not actively doing anything to cause harm to one whose care they are presiding over. Furthermore
the AMA is quoted as being a strong opponent of the practice of active euthanasia due to the
physician purposefully aiding the patient in euthanasia violating the Hippocratic oath all physicians
must take. Rachel's argues that 'allowing' someone to die puts the bystander

The American Medical Association states that passive euthanasia (letting die) is morally
permissible. However, active euthanasia (assisting patients die) is never morally permissible because
it's like killing the patient instead of letting the patient die naturally. Active euthanasia, is taking a
direct action to kill a patient and on the other hand, passive euthanasia, is withholding treatments to
let the patient die (letting die). Rachels (1975) disagrees with the American Medical Association
because he supports active euthanasia contrary to the position of this body. According to Rachels,
active euthanasia reduces the pain of the patients who would otherwise die even without the
injection. In other words, there are no significant differences between letting a person die and killing
a person, who will still perish in the end. Rachels refutes the claim of the American Medical
Association that does not support intentional termination of the life of the patient or what is referred
to as mercy killing. In her view, doctors only uphold their legal mandate by not engaging in the
mercy killing and ignoring their moral duty to ensure the patient die without pain. The doctors only
seek to avoid legal responsibility by letting the patient die instead of killing the patient.
Alternatively, passive euthanasia allows the patient to die naturally while the active one requires the
doctor to take action to terminate the life of the patient. As such, by allowing the patient to die, the

Active euthanasia is the act the patient request a physician to assist in their suicide. Passive
euthanasia is the withdrawal with the deliberate hasten terminally ill–patient's death. Society would
say let nature takes its course (let go and give it to God) by turning off respirators, halting
medications and discontinuing food and water.
The patient and family member would want to weigh the advantage and disadvantage options of
futile treatment. Recalling this with my husband and father the family wanted a second or third
opinion. Individuals with no religious affiliation might highly reject treatment. Even though seeing
the suffering daily and there is not anything that one can do to take it away or even treat it is a slow,
suffering ordeal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said in the process of gaining our rightful place one must not be
responsible for their wrongful deeds. In my opinion, it depends on the situation. Let's not forget Dr.
Kevorkian's involvement in the actions was considered murder at his hands even if it is the patient's
choice. Was Kevorkian a angel of mercy or Doctor Death? Another point is that who is to say that
the treatment would be beneficial for the patient (to end the suffering)? Patients may convey a living
will or a durable power of attorney for healthcare appointments or informally via discussions with
significant others. Doctors may try to prolong life but are not gods. Physicians deciding the
measures if they are appropriate are a matter for the independent inquiry. Is this the physician's
personal choice, control, dignity or respect? It may be overwhelming for the family and family
members lack of knowledge about treatment options, limited access to health and legal professionals
who assist in advance care planning, and often erroneous beliefs that such practices are unnecessary
because family members intuitively understands and thus can convey the patient's preferences at the
end of life. In my opinion, taking a life whether is morally

Active And Passive Euthanasia Analysis
In his article "Active and Passive Euthanasia" James Nichols criticizes the American Medical
Association for forbidding "active" euthanasia, in which a patient is killed quickly and painlessly by
lethal injection, while allowing "passive" euthanasia, in which a patient dies due to withheld
treatment. He makes three objections to the American Medical Association policy; 1) "passive"
euthanasia can result in needless, extended suffering, 2) AMA moral considerations are irrelevant
and 3) distinctions between killing and letting die vary from case to case. Thus, based on Nichols'
objections, he believes that the American Medical Association is morally wrong for allowing
"passive" (and denouncing "active") euthanasia within its code of medical ethics. ... Show more
In the "Intentional Termination of Life" Bonnie Steinbock argues that the AMA does not explicitly
allows passive euthanasia, but rather allows the cessation of life–prolonging treatment. To
Steinbock, passive euthanasia and cessation of treatment are separate entities. For example, a cancer
patient who wishes to stop chemotherapy because it causes excruciating pain is not requesting an
end to treatment because he/she wishes to die, but rather because he/she wishes to no longer be in
pain. Furthermore, there is an argument that active euthanasia (especially in children) often takes
place in an effort to alleviate other's suffering rather than to alleviate the suffering of the patient in
question. Steinbock argues that while waiting for the patient to die may be hard on family, friends
and physicians – it is not necessarily hard on the patient, themselves. Therefore, if a patient's last
days may still be filled with love and care, he/she must be afforded this time. It is immoral to utilize
active euthanasia just to alleviate emotional strain on family, friends and

I never have thought about euthanasia in such depth until this assignment. It isn't something
completely new to me because I have heard about it, it happens everywhere, even if you or I don't
see it. But, I never gathered my thoughts about such a serious topic. Reading such opinions from
these authors made me find out more about this topic but I cannot say I have came to a clear and set
decision or opinion about euthanasia. As James Rachels states, "I can understand why some people
are opposed to all euthanasia, and insist that such infants must be allowed to live. [But] I think I can
also understand why other people favor destroying these babies quickly and painlessly" (Rachels
155).
The reading I disagreed with the most was "Active and Passive Euthanasia" by James Rachels. You
may ask, why? Let me explain to you my thoughts. Rachel's states, "The important difference
between active and passive euthanasia is that, in passive euthanasia, the doctor does not do anything
to bring about the patient's death. The doctor does nothing, and the patient dies of whatever ills
already afflict him." (Rachels 157). And, yes I agree. Passive euthanasia is withholding treatment
and letting the patient die. But, I kept reading this paragraph and it goes on with the following: "In
active euthanasia, however, the doctor does something to bring about the patient's death: he kills
him. The doctor who gives the patient with cancer a lethal injection has himself caused his patient's
death..."

Euthanasi Passive Euthanasia And Active Euthanasia Essay
The third category discusses how if physician assisted suicide was legalized, there could be the
possibility of coercing the patient into choosing euthanasia. The family or caregiver may pressure
the patient into choosing euthanasia just so they could be relieved of the burden of caring for said
patient. This may happen because the family or caregiver has had a lot of pressure put onto them.
Financial burden being a leading factor. Although there is no data that completely verifies this
possible problem, opponents argue that it can be a possible issue and that it should be addressed.
(Ezekiel 637).
There are two types of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is
when a patient passes away without the help of any kind of medication or assistance. Active
euthanasia is when an act is purposely made to end a person 's life whether it is through withdrawal
of treatment or any other life ending options. Often times the treatment that the patient wants is not
given to them but instead what the physician desires is chosen instead (Cawley 859).
An example of when a patient 's wishes are disregarded is when a woman was labeled irrational by
her physician when she refused life prolonging treatment. The physician ignored the husband 's
wishes as well to stop treatment. The doctor did not follow the patient's and the family's wishes and
instead prolonged the patient 's life therefore increasing her physical and mental pain. In the end the
family and the

Active Euthanasia In The United States
Different situations call for different measures. The word euthanasia is associated with ending
someone's life whether it be voluntary or no–voluntary. Euthanasia is categized by two aspects the
1st aspect of euthanasia is considered passive, and the 2nd aspect of euthanasia is categized as active
euthanasia. This propose of this paper is to get a basic understanding of euthanasia and the different
variations of definitions, and to explore whether active euthanasia should be legal or illegal in the
United States. CRITICAL ISSUES
People are human beings therefore they should make decisions about their own health care issues.
Unfortunately, some people are face with having to live each day of their life in pain. Dealing with
endless suffering ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Passive euthanasia also includes removing any artificial means of life support. During this process,
no support is given for example CPR (Cardiopulmonary resuscitation). Furthermore, legal issues
rather arise from passive euthanasia. Physicians have the right to withhold the patient's food and
water if the patient is comatose which means that swallowing is very dangerous for the patient.
Overseers', guardians and powers of attorney's regularly sign DNR (Do not resuscitate) (Virginia
Department of Health, Last Reviewed March 5) stipulates that health care professionals are within
the law to forbear from resuscitating a patient if the order is sign. There are differences and
understanding the severity of passive and active euthanasia are very important. Euthanasia and
doctors have always had an unfavorable relationship, since doctor's promise to do no harm, however
taking part in euthanasia does just the opposite. I believe that as long as the patient is alive, there
could be a possibly for that individual to have a change of mind. There are a lot of medical
mysteries that doctors and scientist cannot explain. Medical miracles happen every day all over the
world. However, how can an individual possibly become a medical miracle if he or she gives up on
life. People are entitled to have the right to die with their dignity rather than having their illness
leave, them as a shadow of what they use to

Active Euthanasia may be a serious conversation that many Americans are unaware of. As of now
it's illegal in most states, and in other theirs's no laws for or against it (Pawlick, Peter 2). Assisted
suicide should be illegal in every state. Scientist steadily discover new facts about medicine and then
create new forms of treatment to keep a critically–ill person alive longer (Pawlick, Peter 2).
Terminally ill, disabled, and/or elderly patients typically feel like a burden on their families and
wish to die (Pawlick, Peter 2). Furthermore, active euthanasia may give doctors too much power
(Pawlick, Peter 2). Assisted suicide can be more harmful to the American public in more ways than
one.
It's certainly clear that times have changed. Humans

Euthanasia And Passive And Active Euthanasia
Euthanasia, with a Greek origin meaning "good death" or "easy death," has been a controversial
topic for a fairly long time. In more lexical terms, euthanasia is known as the act of ending a life due
to an incurable disease or a suffering that one should not bear. In this paper, I will be providing an in
depth look of what passive and active euthanasia is. The lexical distinction between passive and
euthanasia is one actively killing another, and the other being the act of allowing one to die. I will
also be elaborately declaring how there is not a moral distinction between the two by relating to the
views of James Rachels' Active and Passive Euthanasia. After epitomizing Rachels' argument, I will
finally assess his final argument that we should change our policies around euthanasia and present
many claims of why we should not do this.
Given the definitional difference of passive and active euthanasia, in order to fully understand it I
will give examples of the two. Active Euthanasia requires one to physically do something such as
lethally injecting a patient or pulling the cord. On the other hand, passive euthanasia would be
anything on the lines of depriving one of food, when already they had a terminal illness.The action
of not giving food to the patient is not what killed them, but the terminal illness instead. Many
medical professionals would look at most euthanasia cases as mercy killing, if and only if, it was to
be considered active euthanasia. However, if we are

Euthanasia Is Not The Active Death Of A Patient
Euthanasia comes from the Greek words, Eu, meaning good, and thanatosis meaning death. This
means 'Good death,' 'Gentle and easy death.' It is also the word has come to be used for 'Mercy
killing.' In this sense Euthanasia means the active death of a patient.
In today's society euthanasia has become very controversial on whether or not it is classified as a
good action to take for suffering patients of painful and incurable diseases or an irreversible coma.
The video I just showed you was an ad that has been banned in Australia for the very reason of
supporting and advocating Euthanasia. The government is against Euthanasia and leaving people to
suffer in excruciating pain or to find other means of peace, which more than often leads to ... Show
This decision is made by another person because the patient is incapable of to doing so
himself/herself. There are also two different procedural classifications; these are Passive and Active
Euthanasia. Passive is when life–sustaining treatments are withheld. For example if a doctor
prescribes increasing does of strong painkillers which may eventually be toxic for the patient, some
may argue whether passive Euthanasia is taking place. In most cases, the doctor's measures are seen
as a passive one. On the other hand Active Euthanasia is the use of lethal substances or forces which
then gets used to end the patient's life. Active Euthanasia includes life–ending actions conducted by
the patient or somebody else. There have been several attempts to legalise Euthanasia in certain
parts of Australia, however it is currently still unlawful.
Lobby groups opposing the issue and associated arguments:
There are many arguments opposing Euthanasia, but the main lobby group is the Australian
Christian Lobby (ACL). Their vision is to see the Christian Principles influencing the way we are
governed, do business, and relate to each other as a community. ACL facilitates professional
engagement and dialogue between church and state, allowing the voice of the church and of the
individual Christians to be heard in the public square. Jim Wallace the deputy Chairman of the
Australian Christian Lobby stated in an interview on...... that "...."
Other arguments opposing Euthanasia is that

Is Active Euthanasia Morally Permissible

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Valerie Burroughs

More from Valerie Burroughs (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Is Active Euthanasia Morally Permissible