The Mercy of Euthanasia

In the article “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”: A CASE AGAINST ACTIVE EUTHANASIA, It describes two different ‘types’ of euthanasia. The first, they describe as passive euthanasia, which is when futile treatment is withheld from a patient, and letting them die.  The second, active euthanasia, is what most people thing of when mentioning euthanasia, the termination of ones life through medicine.  Passive euthanasia is a common and legal practice in hospitals, my own grandfather being an example of such things happening.  Active euthanasia, one the other hand, is widely disputed and illegal across most of the United States.

In the article,  it argues that there is a big ethical difference between the two.  They do not refer to active euthanasia as euthanasia at all, they simply refer to it as killing.  “…the intention is different: killing involves a direct intention to cause death, whereas letting die carries an intention to avoid suffering from futile treatment and to let the underlying disease take its course.”  They talk of euthanasia as if it is blind murder, when it is nothing like that.  “Letting someone die” can lead to more suffering and complications then euthanasia.  The passive route involves having the patient sit around and wait for the disease to take them.  This can be more cruel then putting that person to sleep.  Euthanasia is not immoral, it gives the patient control over their lives, over their disease.  The article says that euthanasia is active, referring to actively killing the patient. In truth, it is active, but more that the patient is actively taking control over the disease, and not letting the disease control the patient.

Work cited

Hui, Edwin, and W. BENTON Gibbard. “”THOU SHALT NOT KILL”: A CASE AGAINST ACTIVE EUTHANASIA.” Humanehealthcare.net. 2 Nov. 2010. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. <http://www.humanehealthcare.com/Article.asp?art_id=457>.