Active and Passive Euthanasia (Essay Sample)

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Active and Passive Euthanasia
It has been debated which euthanasia is acceptable or if any of the two types of euthanasia are acceptable for the longest time. To some, active is better than passive, while to others, vice-versa is true. However, some people have maintained that euthanasia, in any form, is wrong. In his paper, Rachel (2) argues that once the decision to terminate life is taken, active euthanasia is better than passive euthanasia. The American Medical Association allowing passive euthanasia while prohibiting active euthanasia is wrong. He claims that active euthanasia is better as it immediately terminates the patient's life, preventing long-suffering.
To support his claim, Rachel examines an individual with throat cancer who wishes to terminate his pain. In Rachel's words, the patient faces inevitable death and has little time to live (Rachel's 1). However, the doctor can choose to keep treating him until his demise. The patient and the family and the patient both agree that it would be best in this particular case to administer euthanasia and end his suffering (Rachel's 1). According to the American Medical Association, the only acceptable euthanasia is for the doctor not to administer any medicine and let the patient die (Rachel's 1). However, this beats the sole purpose of euthanasia as withdrawing treatment causes the patient to die but a slow and painful death (Rachel's 2). In active euthanasia, however, lethal injection is administered, and the patient's pain is alleviated faster.
The author has stated a solid point. Although I do not support euthanasia of any form, I agree with the author that in any case that it is allowed, active euthanasia is the best. Morally euthanasia has been long contested as it is referred to as killing, which is an evil act. The reason passive euthanasia is allowed is that it is not killing but rather 'not doing anything, and the patient naturally dies. Rachel (3) strongly detests this and offers a counter-argument by comparing two very similar situations. Smith and Jones both stand to benefit should anything happen to their six-year-old cousin (Rachel 3). Smith, therefore, decides to kill his cousin by drowning him in the bathtub as he takes a bath; Jones also takes the same approach (Rachel 3). Lucky for Jones, though, his cousin slips and hits his head on the tub, falling into the water and drowning (Rachel 3). He, therefore, decides to stand there and watch as his cousin dies, ready to push his head underwater if necessary (Rachel 3). His cousin, however, succumbs by 'accidentally' drowning (Rachel 3