User:Areed22/Active

=Active & Passive Euthanasia Discrepancy=

The active and passive euthanasia discrepancy refers to the ethical difference between the two ways euthanasia is carried out. Active euthanasia (also known as killing) involves doing an action that brings about someone’s death. Passive euthanasia (also known as letting die) involves ending (or refusing to begin) an action that allows someone to die. The ethical discrepancy occurs in how the two are either judged to be different or the same.

Common Distinctions
“In attempting to draw a distinction between active and passive euthanasia, writers typically invoke a number of further distinctions, such as those between: Actions and Omissions Ordinary and extraordinary (or burdensome) means of treatment Intending death and merely foreseeing death”

These distinctions do not encompass the scope of matters between active and passive euthanasia, but will help to reveal what matters are typically considered with this discrepancy.

Action and Omissions
When an ethical line is drawn based on action and omission, there are two general standpoints.

If the actions of the doctor are primarily taken into account, then active and passive euthanasia are going to be different. “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. In active euthanasia, however, the doctor does something to bring about the patient’s death: he kills him.” Using this to consider the situation for active euthanasia, the doctor’s actions are directly killing the patient, while for passive euthanasia, the patient’s illness (condition) is directly killing the patient.

If the result of the actions taken by the doctor is primarily taken into account, then active and passive euthanasia will be taken as the same. “It is not correct to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he lets the patient die. But for any purpose of moral assessment, it is a type of action nonetheless. The decision to let a patient die is subject to moral appraisal in the same way that a decision to kill him would be subject to moral appraisal: it may be assessed as wise or unwise, compassionate or sadistic, right or wrong.” Using this to consider the same idea as above, we see that for either case the result of the doctor’s actions lead to the patient’s death.

Ordinary and Extraordinary (or burdensome) means of treatment
When an ethical line is drawn based on ordinary and extraordinary (or burdensome) means of treatment, the difference will not be in reason, but rather how long until the death occurs. “Whilst intentional killing and intentional letting die are equivalent in so far as they are both instances of the intentional causation of death, it is clear that other extrinsic factors can make a moral difference. The point is this: whilst the administration of a lethal injection would bring a swift and painless death for the patient, letting die may be neither swift nor painless.”

Intending Death and Merely Foreseeing Death
When an ethical line is drawn based on intentions and foreseeing death, there are two general standpoints.

If the intention (ethical stance) of the doctor is primarily taken into account, then active and passive euthanasia are going to be different. “I suggest, then, that the case with which we must compare that of Smith (someone who is planning to kill for inheritance) is this: Jones happens to be on hand when his nephew slips, hits his head, and falls unconscious into his bath-water. Though he is prepared to let the child die, however, and in fact does so (for the inheritance), he would not have been prepared to kill him, because as he might put it, wicked though he is, he draws the line at killing for gain.”

If the intention (desire to help) of the doctor is primarily taken into account, then active and passive euthanasia will be taken as the same (or even that active would be preferable). “Clearly, we would like them (doctors) to be motivated to primarily seek our good, rather than their own; to keep us alive, if this is in our best interests, and to “let” us die, or to “make “ us die, when either one of these actions serve us best.”