Euthansia Article Analysis And Opinion Essay, Research Paper
Euthanasia is the help with a death and is also known as ?mercy killing?. There are two types of Euthanasia: Active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. There is also active voluntary euthanasia and active involuntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is illegal in all states but Oregon, who passed a bill making it legal in 1994 under certain circumstances.
Active Euthanasia is the deliberate action to end the life of a dying patient to avoid further suffering. Passive Euthanasia is the deliberate disconnection of life support equipment, or cessation of any life-sustaining medical procedure, permitting the natural death of a patient.
Active voluntary euthanasia is a lethal injection by a doctor into a dying patient to end life by the request of the sufferer. Active involuntary euthanasia is lethal injection by a doctor into a dying patient without that person’s express request.
The article Euthanasia?s home: What the Dutch experience can teach Americans about assisted suicide is about the Netherlands and the effect on the citizens. It also hypothesis and compares what would be the effect if Euthanasia was legalized in the United States.
In the Netherlands for a physician assisted suicide to take place the patient must be mentally competent, request death voluntarily and repeatedly, and be suffering without prospect of relief. Also the patient wishing to die must endure both emotional and physical suffering.
Most Dutch patients seek euthanasia to avoid useless suffering. However, in the United States Americans say that they are motivated to move on because of the fear of burdening their spouses and families.
Some people in the Netherlands carry around anti-euthanasia ?passports? to tell health care workers that they wish to live in case of emergency. They fear involuntary euthanasia, which is the killing by a doctor into a dying patient without that person’s express request. Others in the Netherlands carry around pro-euthanasia ?passports? which give permission to die if they are incapable of communicating at the time of an emergency.
Euthanasia is permissible under some conditions because of the volenti maxim. The volenti maxim states, ?Where there is consent there is no harm.? In the case of active voluntary euthanasia I would deem it permissible. However, in the case of active involuntary manslaughter it would not be permissible at all.
In the case of active voluntary euthanasia, it always permissible because of the volenti maxim and the consent of the patient. It does not violate the volenti maxim, therefore it does not violate the harm principle. Thus, the act does no harm and the act is permissible and justifiable.
In the case of active involuntary euthanasia it is never permissible and it violates the harm principle. If a person cannot communicate and somebody else decides to end the life for a suffering relative or friend, there is no consent. The volenti maxim states, ?Where there is consent there is no harm.? Thus where there is no consent there is a harm and it violates the harm principle. Therefore the act is impermissible and unjustifiable.
Depending on the case of euthanasia decides where it is permissible or not. The volenti maxim is what decides. To make it easier, where there is consent it is permissible and justifiable. If there is no consent it is not permissible and unjustifiable becuase it violates the harm principle and it is wrong.