Friday, October 12, 2012
The Morality of Active and Passive Euthanasia
Rachels argues that there is no distinction between active and passive euthanasia. It is nothing more than a distinction without a difference except that according to him, once the decision has been made to end the patient's suffering, active euthanasia is in fact preferable and the only humanitarian option. Rachels's claim is that if we are really interested in diminishing suffering, then choosing passive euthansia in fact goes against this sentiment. Do you think Rachels gets it right? Is it really the case that active euthanasia is more moral if the concern is in ending suffering? Lastly, if we go back to the Tracy Latimer case, the 12 year old suffering from cerebral palsy, functioning at the level of a three month old infant and suffering tremendously from her condition, does this discussion on euthansia make you reconsider the morality of what Robert Latimer did. (Remember, I'm not asking about the legality of his behavior but whether morally speaking he behaved in a permissible way).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion active euthenasia is not morally correct in the manner that you are technically still killing somebody by purposefully ending their lives even if it is what they want. Pain and suffering is miserable but I think they right choice so that it is not so controversal is to just make the last days or months as comfortable as possible. There are many types of pain medication and seditives available to help people feel more comfortable or not in so much pain. I think that the Tracy Latimer case was still awful because her father was the one who killed her in the back of his truck by suffocating her with gases. He was not a Doctor, nor had any medical experience from what we know. He had no right to do such a thing even if he did say it was for the pain and suffering I don't think the facts of euthenasia make it any better. Some people I am sure say they would be better off dead than in suffering and pain, but like I stated before, in my opinion you can still be sure to make the person's last days and months comfortable with different resources so that there is no moral conflicts with "murder" and "killing" when it comes to euthenasia of any kind for any reason.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in the case of using euthanasia of any kind it is indeed an act of killing someone. I do believe Rachels point of view in the fact that their is no difference between active or passive euthanasia, but IF one was to be used I do agree that active would be the most moral out of the two types of euthanasia.
DeleteI believe that Rachels has a point when he states that if there is a particular case where euthanasia needs to be used, active euthanasia is in fact the more humanitarian choice. I do agree with Rachels that active euthanasia is the more moral choice in a case that concerns ending suffering. If someone if going to be left to die they should be able to die with little suffering this is why active euthanasia is the more moral choice than passive euthanasia. In the case of Tracy Latimer I believe that she was in fact suffering, but I still do not agree with the way her father proceeded to kill her. I think in Tracy’s case it would have been right for a doctor to use active euthanasia to avoid her from suffering. Although like Rachels said, active euthanasia is illegal it is yet the most moral and humanitarian choice for doctors that are going to proceed to let a patient die. It is clear that active euthanasia is yet the most valid choice to avoid someone from suffering during death. I think that Rachels made a valid point to say there is no distinction between active and passive euthanasia they are both a way of ending someone life, but it is valid that active euthanasia would be a more moral choice that would in the end cause less suffering to the patient that does no longer want to live. If a family makes a choice to let go of their loved one to prevent them from suffering it would be clear to them that active euthanasia would be the less evil of the two euthanasia options. Rachels point is a bit hard because euthanasia is still clearly killing someone which is an unmoral act even if someone wishes to die. Although I do agree with Rachels point IF euthanasia was going to absolutely be used in a particular situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that ending suffering is indeed the way to go. If someone is for sure going to die, it is important that they not suffer. I know if I was the person who was suffering I would want it to end as soon as possible.
DeleteI also agree with the fact that ending suffering is the way to go. If you know you are going to die and living in horrifying pain why would you want to suffer in this manner?
DeleteI agree with Rachels. Morally speaking if we consider the quality of life then active euthanasia is the better choice. From our readings in EMP it states "being alive is a benefit only if it enables you to carry on activities and have thoughts, feelings, and relations with other people- in other words, if it enables you to have a life. without such things, biological existence has no value." Keeping this mind, what life can you have if you are in such pain and suffering that death is the only option for peace. And yes there are pain pills and medications that can ease that pain but by that point it would not help you live your life. Tracy's father was doing what, using this viewpoint would be considered morally right. Tracey was unable to carry on activities, have her own thoughts and feelings, or develop relationships with other people. Her biological existence had no value. Robert's actions were more humane than allowing her to be in that much pain and suffering forever.
ReplyDeleteErin,
DeleteI am on track with you about active euthanasia being the most moral option. The problem I have about the Tracey case is the question as to if it was morally right for her father to make the decision to end her life on his own. Doctors would not end her life via passive euthanasia so he took matters into his own hands.
I agree with you about active euthanasia it is indeed to most moral choice out of the two. I believe that Robert should not have taken Tracey's death into his own hands. I believe that it would have been more moral for him to seek a doctors help in the death of his daughter. I do believe that active euthanasia would have been a moral choice for Tracey, but I do not agree with the fact that her father took it into his own hands to kill her.
DeleteI believe Rachels does indeed get this right. If a patient is suffering and is indeed terminal already, it is difficult for a doctor to stand by and watch without being able to do anything for the pain. I believe that active euthanasia is the right course of action in SOME cases. However, it is not the right choice in all.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I had a friend whos sister was in a coma for 6 months after a car accident and was practically a vegitable. It was unknown the extent of her suffering but after the 6 months it came time to decide to "pull the plug" or not. Her mother decided not to as she was only 15 years old. Miraculously she came out of her coma; with difficulties and still learning basic things today such as eating on her own, walking, talking , etc. If they had chosen to end her life while she was in the coma she would not be here today.
Lets take the example of an older person who has terminal cancer and is in such severe pain and misery from both the cancer itself and treatments and can no longer get out of bed, eat on their own, breath on their own ect. I believe that if it is the patients will; which these days with euthniasia being a popular topic most people alert their family what they wish in such circumstances, active euthinasia would be the best choice.
If you know without a doubt that a patient is not going to or there is a severe little chance of recovering, and they are in extreme pain and suffering tremendiously I do favor active euthanasia.
Looking back on the Tracy Latimer case, my view slightly changes. Yes I feel allowing her to no longer suffer was a good decision, the route taken to end her suffering was not change my opinion on the morality of what Robert Latimer did. I still believe the route he took to end his daughters life was brutal and would not have been a quick happening and she may have suffered more as she was dieing. There could have been another way to end her suffering but the way he chose was not right.
You make a very important point in saying that active euthanasia isn't right in all cases. I so agree with that. The common fear is that if active euthanasia were legal, people would use it for their own benefit instead of for patients' benefit. It is cases like your friend's sister that make me hesitate on this issue.
DeleteYes, Kristal, I think you are right. There are some circumstances where active euthniasia might be beneficial to prevent suffering, but I, and most of society does not believe this to be moral. I feel we must do everything possible to keep someone alive, unless they are suffering, then we must let them pass with only our best effort to keep them comfortable. Jennifer, I feel you stated that people would use this to their own benefit is correct. It would be terribly wrong for someone to have their love one actively euthinasia just because they did not want to take care of them.
DeleteI agree with you completely. I think that every case should be held to a different standard, and looked at differently. It’s so hard to know what is right. Like with your friend’s sister, 6 months is a long time to be in a coma, but how great that she woke up, and is getting better everyday.
DeleteI work at a hospital, and we had a gentleman get in a accident, the doctors said he had no chance of recovery, he would never walk, talk, or live a normal life. Surprise, Surprise he woke up, and is living a happy healthy life. Yes, he does have some deficits but for the most part he is healthy. His wife didn’t give up on him. But on the other hand I have taken care of people with no quality of life. And its so hard to see people living like that. It’s such a hard decision, and like I said before I think every case should be treated differently. I agree with active euthanasia. Doctors, family, therapists, and specialist should all be involved in the decisions for active euthanasia.
This subject is such a double-edged sword. I feel like my thoughts and feelings are all over the place.
I certainly see the validity of Rachel's view. If our goal is to end suffering, active euthanasia is most definitely the proper means to the end. This would also mean Tracy's dad acted in her best interest by actively ending her life. While I see the validity in this, I'm not certain I could do the same thing. This is a question that has haunted me since that movie Million Dollar Baby came out. Could I end the suffering of someone I love? It's a difficult question. This is not the same as euthanasia, but I still struggle with the thought that, "I killed my grandmother" because the family kept her on life support until I got there 12 hours later. I was the deciding factor on when her life ended (although ultimately I believe it was God's choice on when her life ended - it still felt like I was responsible). I think this is something I'd have to come to terms with while in the midst of the circumstance. I can't say I'd fully embrace active euthanasia going into a circumstance, but I also can't say I'd remove the option. Would I want my own family to end my suffering? Yes and perhaps laying that out there is selfish on my part (although it may also end their suffering as well as then they wouldn't have the emotional turmoil involve with watching a loved one wither away). So, I suppose my bottom line is I'm on the fence with this issue and it would be the "what if" factor that may cause hesitation. Like I said, being the reason my grandma died when she did still haunts me. Maybe I'm not strong enough to make this kind of decision.
ReplyDeleteJennifer, it sounds as if your Grandma was being kept alive and when the family decided to no longer keep her alive, she was let die. You should not feel you were the deciding factor. They probably just wanted to give you the chance to say goodbye. This is a hard issue, and cases should be taken one by one, what is good for some families may not be moral for others.
DeleteThank you so much for your kind words Juanita. You are right, they were just giving me the opportunity to say goodbye, but emotions and irrational thoughts still prevail sometimes.
DeleteI do not believe that euthanasia is morally permissible. There is a clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active entail just that--activity. It is not murder, clearly, but it is morally wrong. Passive euthanasia is no euthanasia at all. Allowing someone to die their natural death is not killing someone. Rachels's claim is not based in anything but subjective opinion. He claims that active euthanasia is an end to suffering but how is that morally acceptable? By saying this he is establishing that death is better than suffering. Who is establishing these definitions? Rachel's? Euthanasia is disrupting. It contrasts the world's design. As humans, we are called to suffer. It will happen, some in much more vivid and horrifying situations. But suffering does not give an express ticket to death. I think, major emphasis on I, that many decisions are your own. But choosing death is not one of them. In the case of Latimer it is indeed a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you say, no that's not a condition under the realm of choosing to exit the world. Rachels's stance on euthanasia is rooted in what he feels. He has no basis for what he believes. In doing this, he is able to justify whatever he wants. There is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteAdam,
DeleteI think that Rachel's makes a strong case for active euthanasia. With passive euthanasia a person is "allowed to die" the non action by medical professionals is actually an action in itself. They are making a cognitive decision to do nothing and allow a human to die. This human is forced to endure more suffering to reach an already predetermined outcome. Given this fact active euthanasia seems to be the most logical and moral option of the two. Who is establishing what the worlds design is?
Yes, doing nothing is actually an action in itself, but I believe if the choices were, the person was going to die, or we could keep them alive with machines, it is moral to just let the normal course of live prevail and let them die. Yet, active euthanasia is actually killing that person prematurely. I believe anytime you are killing someone prematurely, that is immoral
DeleteDoing nothing doesn't solve or benefit anyone in these circumstances. In response to Juanita Deardorff, your response is very moral and appropriate. I can not imagine being kept alive by a machine and not knowing anything, or even if I may pull through. If their was a chance I would survive and not be a vegetable, then yes, keep me plugged in! If not, then no, I would want to die by the hands of a doctor by my decision.
DeleteThe end result of passive and active euthanasia are the same: death. The distinction between the two is the approach to the ending of the life. Both requires conscious choice. According to the definitions of each of the terms presented by Rachels, I agree that active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia because active euthanasia effectively ends suffering.
ReplyDeleteWhat most of society seems to forget is that euthanasia is not the same as murder. Murder implies intentionally ending the life of an individual in cold-blood. Merriam-Webster's definition of euthanasia is: "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy."
There is a documentary called "How to Die in Oregon" that I think everyone in this country should watch.
I agree with active euthanasia being more humane than passive euthanasia. I think many people who have experienced someone close to them suffering or have seen documentaries such as this, have this belief. I will have to check out this documentary.
DeleteBrianne,
DeleteI'm in total agreement with you about active euthanasia being the most human option of the two. The only time euthanasia is used is to end pain and suffering or unchangeable circumstances. I think the quicker the better, I would much rather die peacefully than live my last days in an incredible amount of pain.
Right, the outcome of both types euthanasia is death. Considering that active euthanasia is the more moral choice of the two types. Like Riley states the quicker the better. I think someone in this type of situation would in fact choose active euthanasia.
DeleteAs most of the other stated, I also believe that Rachel’s is correct in his views about passive and active euthanasia. Rachel’s believes in the benefit of one’s outcome and respects their beliefs and decisions. Regardless of the choice with both forms, one is to die regardless. Why not do what is best, in regards to what the patient wants. I would like to post that Brianne Correll made a great point in her post that "euthanasia is not the same as murder". I agree that many believe that this is the case, that we are killing people. This is so not the truth. If I was to become ill and knew that nothing was possible to end my disease, I feel that it’s my choice to decide how I will live my final hours.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. Active euthanasia would only benefit those suffering. I do think doctors would need to do an intense evaluation before choosing active euthanasia.
DeleteRight, active euthanasia is not the same as murder. It is a way of allowing someone to end their own life so they do not have to suffer long-term. That is also why I believe the father, Robert, who murdered his daughter, Tracy, was in the wrong as it was a murder.
DeleteRachel's makes a strong case as to why active euthanasia should actually be the prefered method. The point where euthanasia has been chosen as the final option for a patient is a place where death has already been determined as a fact. Rather than prolong pain and agony active euthanasia should be used to speed up an already predetermined event.
DeleteI feel that Rachel's views are correct since there really is no difference in the end when it comes to active and passive euthanasia. Either way, the patient is going to die. I feel that if a patient is terminally ill, and chooses to give up, they should be able to choose how they die. Nobody wants to die in extreme pain, so I feel that if a doctor can help alleviate some of their suffering, than they should be allowed to. However, in the case of Tracy Lattimer, I still feel that it is a real touchy subject. Yes, she had cerebral palsy and was in pain, but she wasn't dying from it, it was just holding back her development. I believe that the only time active euthanasia should be used is if the person is already actively dying from an illness, and is in excruciating pain. Otherwise, killing people who are mildly sick or have disabilities might become acceptable, when it really shouldn't be.
ReplyDeleteShe was not dying from it yet, however this child was in mass pain, and the story said that even with continued surgeries, that the pain was not going to get better it was only going to worse. It is a very touchy subject I agree, but it would be so hard to see your child suffer that much. Again, I could never that do but I I do think that I can morally condemn someone for it.
DeleteI do think that there is a difference in active and passive euthanasia. In the example that was give we have two separate scenarios one that was punishable in court and the other was not because it was a mistake. I also do believe that when it comes to ending a life for medical reasons, that active euthanasia is more moral. I think that it should be up to the person who is lying in bed dying to choose whether or not to live, or the person who has stage four cancer. I think it would be wrong for a doctor to push medicine on a person to only have them die a month or two. No, it does not change my mind I still don’t think what he did was wrong, however as a parent I could not make that choice, and for parent to be able to make that decision I think that their child must be suffering. Also, knowing that the treatments were not going to help improve her condition.
ReplyDeleteyes, I agree, it's definitely a choice of the person laying in the bed waiting to die.
DeleteIn the article, Did it say that no treatments were to help her condition improve? From what I recall, she was in the process of many surgeries.
I think that there is a big difference between a doctor giving a lethal dose to a terminally ill cancer patient,versus a dad that gases his daughter in his garage inside of his truck while his family is at church on a Sunday morning.
Maybe what he did was for the best of the daughter and the father and the whole family as a whole. However, when we give birth to a child {sperm or the carrier of the child) and they have a disorder, it is not up to us as the parent to kill them.
I agree with Rachels in that under certain conditions active euthanasia is acceptable, or should be. In a case where a person who was diminished to being completely dependant on machines to live, who was bed ridden, was being dosed with pain killers 24 hours a day to merely exist and wait to die. Or another one in which a cancer victim is inopperable and they are being medicated with pain killers on a coninually basis to merely wait for the cancer to fully consume their body and lives. These are just a few examples that I could think of. Passive euthanasia would be acceptable in instances if it is the wish of that person, if they agree to go day in and day out being dependant on medication and others to fullfill their daily duties of life sustanance. In the case of Tracy it was still morally wrong for her father kill her, even if it was out of concern for her suffering. Killing her with the gases was a slow and lonely death. Did he really think that was better. I believe that for active euthansia to be legalized that it would need to be controlled by an authority board of top medical geniuses and would need to be applied for on a case by case basis. That way it was not neccesarily left up to a single doctor but by a majority vote of others that says yes, it is okay to do this in this particular case IF the individual is truly wanting it.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you depending on the case. In certain situations a person might have a fighting chance to live. It is important that people take that into consideration even though they may deal with some suffering. It really depends on each individual case. I also think that active euthanasia should be legalized but controlled by the medical board. You stated some very good points.
DeleteIf the case is to end suffering, active euthanasia is a moral choice. Though, regarding to being a helping hand in someone's death, when an uncurable disease and suffering persists, passive euthanasia seems immoral also. How could you just sit and watch somebody suffer and know that they are in uncontrollable pain? If I were in the shoes, I would have someone keep me from suffering and let me go. I believe that passive euthanasia is moral if they are not in pain, harming anybody else, and if you could prevent someone from dying. I believe that if somebody is dying, let them do it comfortably. The person should not be allowed to suffer and neither should the prolonguing of the suffering of their loved ones. The ill person would not like to sit there and in pain, so relieving that would probably be their wish. I think that it should be up to the person. I would want to move on and my friends and family to move on also. It would be hard enough to know you are helpless, but also knowing that you and your family do not need to suffer, active or passive euthanasia, comfortably, would be a moral choice.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Tracy Latimer, my views of what her father did reconsiders my stand on the situation. Tracy and her family were suffering, and knew that her condition was not going to get any better and eventually die. I believe that if Tracy could have expressed her choice clearly, she would have chosen to end her life as she knew it. She had no life. She was in pain and went under and would still undergo many surgeries, without making her any better, prolonguing her suffering. That is what I believe her parents were going through. They might of felt like they were torturing their daughter, knowing that they could not get her better in the future. Ending her suffering seemed to be the right thing to do.
I agree with you on active euthanasia. I have seen suffering personally and I know if it was me suffering, I would want someone to end it. I believe if the person suffering is fully capable of understanding their condition then why not.
DeleteI have to stand right there by you on this one. I could not stand it if I were the one in pain, and I was told that Iwas going to have to couniue to suffer. How afuwl, I also think that you are right and if Tracy could have gotten a point across she would have wanted that. Again, as a parent I could not make that choise about my child.
DeleteReading through Rachels arguments I was really unsure whether he was right. I believe that killing another person is wrong no matter the circumstances so with that said I do not think that Rachels had it right in anyway. Active euthanasia is not the morally correct option in my opinion. No matter how it is put using this form of euthanasia is killing someone. Today’s technology and medicine is able to diminish suffering and pain but to an extent is not possible. Suffering is an awful thing when someone is at the end of their life but that is part of life. It is something that we as humans should accept but obviously we don’t. Now I am not saying that pain medications and other things that may help someone be comfortable at the end of their life is wrong but going to the extent of killing whomever may be in such a situation is entirely wrong to me. Personally I have been in a situation where one of my close and much loved family members was nearing the end of his life and had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease some time before his death. If it had been that his doctor had used active euthanasia on him I’m positive that my family would probably not have been to accepting of the idea. I would see that doctor as the person that killed my grandfather. Now if a patient had asked their doctor to cease any form of treatment or medication being administered I believe that is morally okay. Many people become exhausted from fighting cancer or disease and start giving up or just would rather just pass peacefully. Like my grandfather, he knew his time had come and had distinctly told my dad that it is okay to let him go. It is a very hard thing to go through but life doesn’t last forever. As for the Tracy Latimer case I still do not believe that her father had any right to do what he did. He was not in any circumstance to do such an awful crime. No matter the suffering she was going through, that young and helpless girl did not deserve to die by having her father deliberately placing her in his truck and asphyxiating her by exhaust fumes. It was an awful situation for the entire family but murder his own daughter was not what Robert Latimer should have done.
ReplyDeleteRachel's claims that once the decision has been made to let someone die, active euthanasia is actually a much more humane way to do it than passive euthanasia. I agree with Rachel's when he makes this statement. It seems that once it has been decided to let someone die prolonging their misery is very counter productive when the intent is to help the patient. Passive Euthanasia will require a patient to endure longer amounts of pain even when the outcome has already been determined. Active Euthanasia would effectively end the suffering of a patient in a much more timely manner. Saving not only the patient from unneccesary pain but also the family from prolonged suffering. Morally the correct thing to do when it has been decided to let a patient die is to save them undue pain and misery, which would result in the use of active euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteIf we look back at the case of Tracy Latimer, where a father took the life of his 12 year old daughter who was functioning at the level of a 3 month old. Little changes to make me reconsider the morality of her fathers actions. I believe that in order for her father to be considered as acting morally there would have to be a decision that it would be ok to let Tracy Latimer pass away. That is what is in question for me. Would he even be moral to let Tracy Latimer by way of passive euthanasia. For me there is no clear cut answer, however, I tend to lean towards the side of unmoral action by her father. I do not believe he is the one who deserves to make the decision as to whether his daughter will live or die.
A few of years ago I wouldn't have agreed with Rachels but going through family tragedy I believe in active euthanasia. A couple years ago, I watched my mother die from COPD. She tried to kill herself several times before she died because of the suffering she was put through. It was the toughest thing to see a loved one suffering. I think just seeing how determined she was to not live like that anymore changed my way of thinking. I don't agree with Tracy Latimer case. The father took his daughters life in his own hands. Even if she was suffering, it was not right. I don't think any child could make such a decision at any rate.
ReplyDeleteAmanda, I can only imagine the deep sorrow and pain you seen your mother go through. I truly hope I never have to see my mother experience this type of pain. It's sad that in America, we are suppose to have the choice to make our own decisions, and your mother actually had to try to kill herself to end her life when a simple dose from the doctor would've relieved her. I am so sorry that you had to experience this, Amanda. Blessings to you, my dear!!
DeleteI don't think her father should have made he choice to kill her. Yet I do think that if she were of sound body and mind that she would have made that choice for her self. I am soory to her about your mom too.
DeleteI as well dont think that her father should have made that choice for her either. I think that euthanasia should be a choice for an adult who has gone through and thought about every aspect and knows what they are wanting is whats best for them.
Delete
ReplyDeleteMy take on this issue that Rachels argues between active and passive euthanasia, is somewhat similar. My stance is, I do not think it is every morally correct to use either forms of euthanasia. The only exception in my eyes is when people are put on respirators to live, but are not/ will not ever awaken. Both can be extremely controversial, but I think passive euthanasia is more humane than active. My reason being that studies have been done that demonstrate the pain actually going on within the body during certain forms of active euthanasia, such as lethal injection. The cocktails used in this form of capital punishment have shown to cause extreme pain to the body, and sometimes unexpectedly delay the full effect upon injection. In the case of 12 year old Tracy Latimer, I do not find the use of euthanasia morally correct. I think if it were, then many more cases concerning passive euthanasia would come about and become more and more justifiable. I could not quite imagine the pain and suffering the Latimer’s went through. Because I feel like life should run it’s course, I think passive euthanasia is the only justifiable form. An example of the use of passive euthanasia is the fighting cancer, and variety of treatments used to do so.
I think that Rachel is totally right. I cannot imagine that people think it is okay to just let people passively suffer if there is no hope for them and they are in a ton of pain! People should not have to suffer if dying is what they truly want. I think each case should be looked at and each person should be evaluated by a professional first but people should be able to choose. I think active euthanasia is the most moral thing if people are suffering. I have a mother in-law that suffers from an incurable disease and her life is nothing but pain management. If she wanted to have active euthanasia I think it should be her choice. I think that Robert did the right and moral thing for his daughter. She was suffering horribly and her dad was only trying to help her and her family. Robert was only doing what everyone else wishes they had the strength to do.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think people should have a choice. Choice is the name of the American game. But it's so funny how they prohibit us from making our own choices in this regard.
DeleteI do not personally think that Robert was in the right to murder his daughter. It was not his place to take her life. Active euthanasia should be for people that are terminally ill. There were no doctors orders saying that his daughter was terminally ill or could never improve. Rather she was in the process of many surgeries to improve her condition.
However, on a deeper level, every person and every soul is on a journey, and sometimes we don't know exactly why things happen the way they do.
We are not the judge.
He didn't have to kill his daughter the way he did. Also he could have talked it over with his wife. It was not okay for him to do such a thing.
DeleteI believe euthanasia is ok, but I also believe that the person suffering is the one who chooses to go that way, not their loved ones. We all feel bad for her and what she had gone through, but her dad made the choice for her.
DeleteI think that Rachels does get it right. If the main concern of morality is to end suffering than I think that active euthanasia would be more moral than passive euthanasia. In active euthanasia a patient would die quickly and almost pain free. In passive euthanasia the end result is the same but a patient would die very slowly and painfully. In the Tracy Latimer case I still think that her father did what he thought was right. He wanted her to suffer any longer and in this respect he did behave morally because he reduced the amount of pain that she suffered. Tracy was suffering slowly and painfully the end result would have also been death, instead of letting this happen her father resulted to active euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteI agree that if we are really interested in diminishing suffering then active euthanasia seems like the best option. And according to Rachel’s claim, I agree that if choosing passive euthanasia it does not seem right if the reason was to reduce suffering for someone. I do believe that active euthanasia is the more moral reasoning to end suffering. It just seems more reasonable rather than letting someone suffer, if it is in the right circumstances. Now going back to the Tracy Latimer case, it definitely makes me think differently since this discussion. I believe that the reason he did that makes a little sense because he was looking out for his daughter and wanted to end her suffering. What he did was also selfish and part of ending his own daughters life was benefiting his life too so that he didn’t have to suffer taking care of her anymore in that state. I think that it would be a very tough decision to make if it was even offered to decide whether or not to end your child’s suffering, I think that is what every parents determination in life is to not have their kid suffer with anything. To keep them safe and out of harm’s way so that they will not be in any circumstances that would let them suffer. So with regard to this discussion, I believe that he had somewhat good reasoning to do what he did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Cari. It does seem that diminishing suffering could be achieved through active euthanasia. It is so much peaceful and more painless for patient.
DeleteI also agree that the father of the daughter with the disorder was acting in selfish ways to personally benefit himself. There was no doctors orders the said she needed to die. I do not believe the he had a place to take his daughters life by gassing her with fumes from his truck while his family was at church on Sunday morning.
I can understand implementing active euthanasia when it actually prohibits someone from suffering longer than need be. If somebody is already going to die, a terminal illness or disease, why would that person need to suffer long-term when they could be put out of their misery. I think that it's up to an individual person if they want to specify in their living-will that they would like to be put out of their misery if they are in this situation.
ReplyDeleteAs the article points out, this type of killing, is not a brutal murder, it's a painless, peaceful death; allowing them not to suffer any longer especially when there already going to die anyway. I can understand not putting doctors in a moral dilemma, however as the article also points out, Doctors' are a part of this either way. Whether they withhold treatment and/or medication or they give a lethal dose to end the life, they are still coming to the same end result.
I still have a hard time with the story of Tracy Latimer. The father took it upon himself to end his daughter's life, he personally benefited from her death as he did not have to care for her any longer. There were no doctors orders that she was terminally ill or that there was no chance of ever becoming better or progressing. I think there's a difference between a father gassing his daughter with fumes and a doctor giving a lethal dose to a terminally ill cancer patient.
I think that if someone who suffers wants to die then they should have the right. People should talk about it with their families when they are young (with their children) just incase something like that were to happen.
ReplyDeleteWould you consider that a living will? So you think it is right that Tracys father killed her? I am in agreence with active euthanasia however as a parent I could not do that.
DeleteI agree that if someone suffering wants to die that they should have a right to do so. I as well would like to know what your opinion about what Tracy's father did and if you have reconsider what he has done after reading Rachel.
DeleteAmanda, I think that it would be a good idea to put into a living will. I never thought of that.
I agree! I think it is up to the particular person if they want to die they should be given that choice. I think if given the choice of euthanasia most people would indeed pick active.
DeleteI think it is so so wrong that Tracy's father killed her. He had raised her for 13 years and made that decision for her. He was selfish for doing such a thing.
DeleteI believe that active euthanasia is a moral act if it is done to end the suffering of the patient and if the patient wishes it to be done. It seems more cruel to me to tell someone in great pain who will die anyway, that they just have to deal with suffering for days or weeks until their bodies finally cannot take it anymore. I believe if someone wants to end their suffering it actually gives them a little control over their own lives and a little dignity rather than have to let their bodies waste away.
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with doctors that would have to do active euthanasia but if it is in the patients' best interest then I think it should be done. People do not want to make animals that are suffering and dying have to go through that so we should feel the same way towards other humans as well.
Back to Tracy Latimer's case though, I think her father did not do the right thing. I sympathized with him when I read the story in the book, however, once I did more reading on the case I found out other details that I felt were suspicious. I remember finding out that he tried to hide what he did even from his wife. When I read the book I didn't know he had tried to cover it up. I also read numerous articles that said Tracy wasn't suffering to the point that life was unbearable for her at all. So I'm actually pretty skeptical that Tracy's father killed her in a moral way. He may have hated seeing his daughter in the condition she was in, but I feel like he killed her for some of his own selfish reasons as well.
This weeks reading also made me think long and hard regarding whether or not I believe in active or passive euthanasia. I have stated before that I believe that God is the only one that determines when it is our time to go, so therefore I do not believe in active euthanasia nor do I think it is the moral thing to do.
ReplyDeletePeople have stated in posts that there are other ways to eliminate suffering rather than "killing" a person by active euthanaisa. For example giving them medications which would be considered passive euthanasia. This is true, but after working in nursing homes for the past 8 years I have seen high doses of morphine given to patients to "eliminate pain and suffering", but what that morphine is really doing is supressing their respirations in hopes that their death will come sooner than if they had not given morphine at all. These high doses of medications have a dual effect of relieving pain but also speeding up the death process. I do believe that keeping your patients comfortable is extremely important, and I do believe this is ok.
I am sure that If I were to ever be put in this situation I may think differently, but I do not think it is the physicians duty to end a life because the patient requests it. That is a huge responsibility to put on that doctor, and I just do not feel that it is morally right. If a person decides to end their life than that is their choice, but having someone do it for them I do not feel is the right way to go.
So, back to Tracy I do not think what the father did was right. She may have been suffering, but that is in Gods hands and for him to deal with not her father.
Is is said that active euthanasia is done by medical professionals or someone, deliberately doing something to cause harm on the patient. Passive is when a professional switched off the life support machine or disconnects a feeding tube. I do not think it is right for active euthanasia, i think passive is morally correct because it can end someone is severe pain and no longer wants to continue that pain. For someone to just chose to die i think is wrong. If the patient is in pain and has chosen to say their good-byes i agree with them. Peopling wanting just an out i don't think is correct way.
ReplyDeleteBack to Tracey's case, i don't know if it changes things for me. I realize he did it to stop the pain but he still could have went in a completely different direction. He could have taken her to the hospital and talked about the options there but him doing it doesn't describe the active/passive euthanasia.
In my opinion, I feel that Rachel's got it somewhat right. Passive euthanasia prolongs the suffering, but in the end the choice was made by the doctors or families to without treatment. In doing so, the doctor is ultimately making the choice to end their patient’s life. Active euthanasia is the same because the doctor or family is still making a choice to end a life. On the contrary, I am not sure if active euthanasia is the preferable choice and the most humanitarian option. Choosing passive euthanasia does go against the sentiment of ending suffering, but this is the only choice most physicians and family members can make. Ultimately, I believe if the patient wants to die then we should respect their final wishes.
ReplyDeleteActive euthanasia might be the more moral choice when it concerns ending suffering. If a terminally ill patient wants to die because they cannot control the pain they are in, then active euthanasia should be permitted. Although, I can see certain patients falling through the cracks if active euthanasia were legal. For instance, someone with a terminally ill disease might also be suffering with depression. They may have years to live, but they prefer to end their lives quicker. By asking a doctor to perform active euthanasia would be the wrong choice. It would only be the right choice if severe physical suffering was taking place and medications gave little relief.
This discussion does make me reconsider the morality of what Robert Latimer did. He knew his child was suffering, and there was nothing doctors could do regarding euthanasia. If Tracy was at a mental level of a three month old, there is no possible way she could have had any chance of making that decision. Putting myself in Robert's shoes, I am not sure if I would have ended her life the way he did. I am certain if it were my child I would want her to pass on to end her suffering, yet I am positive I would not possess the courage to take a life.
The first question of do I think Rachel gets it right, is one that i am not completely sure about. I some ways I do believe he gets it right. As long as the person suffering and the condition is absolute not curable wants to end their life. Then on the other hand this is an innocent person and killing an innocent person is morally not right. So I honestly am not sure if where I stand on that question.
ReplyDeleteI do believe active euthanasia is more moral if ending suffering. Especially if that person has an incurable disease and ask for his/her life taken.
This discussion did make me think more about Tracy Latimer case. I have reconsider the morality of what Robert Latimer did. I know he didnt want his daughter to suffer anymore and just wanted her to be free of all the pain she had been in her entire life. On the other hand I feel he made the choice for her (yes i know she couldnt communicate). I believe that the choice of euthanasia should fall into the hands of the person who is suffering, not their loved ones.
I agree with the fact that active euthanasia is indeed the most moral act out of the two. I believe that a person suffering would choose active euthanasia. I do believe that it was wrong for Robert to take his daughters situation into his own hands. I believe he should have seeked a doctors help and permission before he killed his daughter.
DeleteThis is a bit of a touchy subject for me. I have a family member who committed suicide 1.5 years ago. Alan, committed suicide due to suffering from serious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after serving in Iraq. He left behind a beautiful daughter who was born after his death. While I can understand the things he suffered from I think before we make that decision on the right time to end suffering or not a doctor should be involved in making sure that there are no other options in which the person can be helped. Morally speaking this goes against "thou shall not kill" but I do feel in certain circumstances where you know your life is going to end in a miserable way that one should be entitled to choose; but if and only after doctors have explored all options. In the case of Tracey, there was no further help for her. She would never experience any type of normal life. I can see how he would want to end her pain and suffering. I cannot imagine what it would be like as a parent to watch your child suffer in that manner day in and day out. I feel that passive and active euthanasia should be the choice of a patient when they have something incurable and are near the end where they can no longer enjoy any part of life at all.
ReplyDeleteSo many deaths, so many ways to do, people do it every day. We wrap ourselves up in how we feel about others doing to others that which we have never had to do. Rachel's cites Anthony Shaw and his excerpt from the passage regarding what doctors and nurses must go through when the decision to do nothing results in a protracted and painful death experience for a human who cannot voice a desire to live or die. Who feels more cognitive suffering and is left living their lives with the specter of these malignant events? Those of us who live on of course. There are too many situations to cite where a particular state of living or dying may call to question whether we can all agree upon either helping to end suffering, natural or otherwise made, can be acceptable by the masses. One and all we must take a stance on what we can live with.
ReplyDeleteSince man could reason, we have culled from our species the weak, the sick, the malformed, and those who are unable to provide for themselves. Socially people die every day. Those who are suffering from incurable diseases and endure physical and psychological pain beyond what you can imagine are told they must suck it up and live on. Meanwhile society does what it can to categorize them, keep them from feeling bad about themselves, but in many cases silently removes them from the overall picture through either institutionalization or medication.
Citing religious texts and church doctrines that have made their way into various associations legalese over the past two hundred years does little to stop how the animal known has human has treated those of their kind who are not fit to survive without the help of the village. Man still finds a way to trod down the weak and infirm. In the past 70 years we have made gigantic leaps ahead in science, medicine and nutrition, in a race to lessen the chances that people will die needlessly or from curable woes. We cannot control it though, the more we try to stop these deaths the more creative "nature" gets at killing us off.
To use our medical prowess to take away life from innocents who cannot speak for themselves, or who know not what they ask since they have not had a chance to live a life beyond puberty it goes against most people's very moral fiber for some reason that this should not be done. Yet on the other hand, if the person is well versed in life, especially those who are in their geriatric years, we see it as a "blessing" if they pass quietly from this world. I often hear people say "I am happy now that his/her soul is at rest and with our maker."
If the old person, suffering or not can pass and it be an occasion we take solace in why cannot the same be said for the young who suffer intolerably or who will never live life let alone survive the first few years?
To me it would seem that they who propose there is a greater force at work (aka God) would be less bereft and more self assured about letting one die or helping them to if it means they will not physically and mentally suffer a cruel death. In my opinion, it should go without question that such decisions be allowed to occur on the part of a person - through knowing say so or through their will or papers written beforehand that request if such occasion should occur and render them unable to act - that those who care for them may do so in their stead.
DeleteThe Tracy Latimer case is one of mistakes put upon more mistakes. Let me go back to my previous statements above. We have the means to see if those who are to born will be healthy, and if they will have a chance at living a valid existence as a human being. We should exercise this power with care, but we must use it to a degree that allows for some sort of an agreeable terms for life to endure. If you knew you were going to have a child with such harrowing difficulties at living, would you let it go to term? Would you want it to be born and then care for such a person 24/7 until their natural demise? Were I the potential mother, I would not. I do not agree with the means to which the father went to end suffering - for in truth - he was ending only his own at that point.
I think Rachels does get it right. If it were me or my loved one I would want the option of avoiding more suffering and misery than necessary, I think the moral dilemma for doctors is more of a legal dilemma, they don't want to be held accountable for killing. The Rachels article did make me re-think the morality of what Mr. Latimer did. I think he was ending 12 years of his daughters and his family's suffering. The conditions must have been extreme indeed to drive a parent to even consider such options. The moral question that comes to mind for me is what if he wouldn't have done anything and she would have slowly suffered and died a few months or years later anyway, was he really unjustified in ending her and his family's suffering? It's too bad he was forced to take matters into his own hands, it may have been better if there was the option of active euthanasia available in that case.
ReplyDeleteI believe Rachael’s claim was correct. I also feel that it is only right for someone to ‘aid’ in ending the suffering of an individual rather than cutting off treatments and allowing them to suffer more. However, I feel that the patient needs to be able to make that decision on their own rather than letting others make it for them because there may be other things that are motivating them to make that decision. Therefore, I do not think that this should apply to the TL case. The dad was 100% wrong in killing his child when there are places that specialize in the care of children in that condition. Also, if TL would have been getting proper care she may not have gotten to such a severe state. This is all just my assumptions- but I do not feel the two topics should be held at the same level.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking upon the question neither one is right. Killing actively should not be allowed, unless that person can give consent. Passiv euthanisia is oftentimes even worse, because we let people suffer due to a lack of nutrition and fluids.
ReplyDeleteHow would I decide? Honest I know in case of my husband who is old enough, vegetable, go. If me or my husband would be in this condition we know what each others wishes would be. We would want to die, but when it comes to my kids, I don't know. And as long as I don't I will not make that decission.
Does it make me reconsider the Latimer case? NO? He made a decission he had no right to make. When our children are born we have to protect them and not "end their suffering" just because we are tired of taking care of them. Once you have children, whatever you want takes a backseat to what they need. And the first thing they need is our love and protection. We have no right to end their lives until we know what they would wish for.
Euthanasia is something I feel very strongly about. If I want to be done suffering, I would in no way feel as if whoever pulled my plug had killed me; if anything they would save me. I really don't see anything morally incorrect about it. In fact in my opinion, active euthanasia is better than passive because it is faster and less painfull. In a way I think Rachel has a point stating that passive really causes more suffering. I still believe that in the latiner case the father had justifications.
ReplyDeleteI do not Believe in active Euthanasia. I feel that if someone is suffering, rather than focusing on whether or not killing them is the right answer, they should focus on giving the best medical attention they can! I know it's unrealistic in some cases to think that they will live through a tragedy, but i think it is better to believe in something good and be called foolish than it is to belive in something negative and be called realistic. We need to focus our energy on saving and living not killing the ones in need, but giving them hope!
ReplyDeleteI believe that active euthanasia is permissable and it cases of extreme suffering is absolutely the most moral choice that could be made. My mother died of cancer. She was in tremendous pain, the cancer had spread through her whole body. She had just got home from brain surgery in New York, she had went through radiation and Chemotherapy. She tried everything possible. She had been in New York for months, the tumor in her brain was causing so much swelling that she couldn't remember anything, she was completly incoherent because the cancer in her stomach wouldn't allow her to keep the medication for the swelling down. She went into several comas while in New York and finally surgery was performed. I was in prison at this time, I called home the day after she arrived home and she sounded great and said she was feeling better and that she couldn't remember anything that had happened for many months. I was relieved and happy and I thought everything was going to be okay. Two days later I was called from my cell, and escorted down endless hallways, finally we arrived at our destination, the Chaplens office. My mother had started to cough up blood the night after I talked to her and fell into another coma. She never woke back up and she died surrounded by my family in her home. I tell you all this story because I hope none of you have had to go through this. I was fortunate in a way because I was not there to see the pain and the suffering that my mother was going through. I am grateful that her suffering has ended and if it had gotten to the point that she asked me to make her pain stop, I would have. She had exhausted all her options and she put up an amazing fight with the most aggressive cancer there is. She never gave up hope, but eventually there is just nothing else that can be done. Morphine and oxycodone do no make you "more comfortable." The intestinal problems that they caused her were in a way worse than her other pain. I think that it is easy for us all to say "killing is wrong no matter what" until we witness that pain and suffering first hand. Watching the life slip away from them day by day and witnessing that kind of suffering, and letting it continue when being asked to help the suffering end, would be inhumane and incredibly cruel. The father who couldn't stand to watch his daughter suffer anymore, that took a strong man to go through with that. We dont't want people to die because of selfish reasons, we don't want to live without them. He loved his daughter and he didn't want her to hurt no more and he helped her to end that, I think that is amazing. Its not as if he drowned a healthy girl or beat her to death, crap that happens everyday. He let his daughter go to sleep and find peace and he has to live with that everyday. I think that before you are so quick to say I don't believe in active euthanasia, you need to consider what you are making the other person go through. Thanks for listening and sorry for such a long post, I just really had a lot to say about this subject.
ReplyDeleteI'm so sorry your mom had to go through all that. Thank you for sharing your story.
Delete