Forms and Moral Difference of Euthanasia to Murder or Suicide (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Euthanasia
Introduction
Death has become a common occurrence in the society with its cause varying from diseases, accidents, euthanasia and so forth; however, the deliberate cause of death to others may be not only a violation of moral values but also legal provisions across the world. Despite many patients willing to live, some prefer dying instead undergoing much suffering that is associated with the reduced quality of life due to terminal illnesses. According to Cohen-Almagor, most patients want to live; contrarily, a significant number of others prefer dying, especially those suffering from debilitating end of life illnesses (1). A considerable number of physicians engage in this form of practice where patients terminate their lives under the guidance of their clinicians. However, it is critical to understand the meaning of euthanasia including its different forms that may be passive or acute; acknowledging its moral difference to both suicide and murder is equally essential.
Forms of Euthanasia
Active and Passive Euthanasia. The presence or absence of deliberate physician actions to terminate the life of a patient characterizes euthanasia as active or passive. In active euthanasia, physicians deliberately act through the execution of measures that result in the death of a patient (Crocker 2). Usually, the clinician can intentionally administer lethal drugs or overdose the patient to bring life to an end. However, in passive euthanasia, doctors deliberately withhold or withdraw treatment services that sustain life, which ultimately lead to the death of the patient (Crocker 2). Basically, clinicians intentionally fail to provide appropriate care to the patient with the aim of causing death. For instance, the patient may be requiring oxygen therapy or kidney dialysis to survive; conversely, clinicians may intentionally disconnect the dialysis machine or the nasal prongs for the delivery of oxygen to hasten the process of dying. Therefore, active euthanasia involves the doctor performing acts that end the life of the patient contrary to passive euthanasia in which interventions are not executed to preserve life.
Primarily, passive euthanasia is perceived to be morally and ethically permissible compared to active euthanasia. Crocker reiterates that passive euthanasia is morally acceptable since the failure of physicians to save life permits the will of God to take place without human intervention (2). In the case of a heart attack, the patient may collapse to follow the natural course of death when physicians fail to act by ordering for resuscitation; however, this moral permissibility may only be acknowledged from a religious point of view. Banović and Turanjanin argue that the moral aspect of passive euthanasia is based on religious grounds with secular claims rejected due to the lack of consideration of the significance of God as the creator of the entire universe and human beings (1317). Conversely, active forms of euthanasia are not considered ethical since physicians directly participate in terminating the life of patients. As such, the respect of life, which God created, is violated in addition to breaking the fundamental rights of life (Crocker 2). Principally, physicians do not have the moral obligation to facilitate the life of their patients, but it is morally permissible to give room to the course of nature; unfortunately, failing to execute medical interventions is not a moral responsibility of the medical profession in places that forbid euthanasia.
Voluntary, Involuntary, and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. In voluntary euthanasia, physicians perform acts that terminate life at the request of the patient. For instance, the patient may avoid suffering due to a terminal illness, such as cancer by requesting the clinician to stop interventions that can preserve life or withdraw life-saving treatment even after realizing that such actions result in death. Conversely, involuntary euthanasia entails the termination of life without the patient’s request (Crocker 2). For example, the physician may decide to end the life of the patient, who is in pain from a terminal illness, with the aim of preventing further suffering; however, the patient does not possess the knowledge of physician's actions that lead to death. Further, in non-voluntary euthanasia, death is induced by the physician to the patient, who is unable to give an informed consent as a result of the incapability to consent, majorly due to the effect of the terminal illness (Crocker 2). For instance, the physician may decide to terminate the life of a comatose patient who is unable to communicate in order to prevent further suffering. Therefore, the three categories of euthanasia are concerned with the performance of life-ending actions by the physicians with or without the patient’s knowledge and consent.
Moral Difference of Euthanasia to Murder or Suicide
Morally, euthanasia differs from both suicide and murder in many ways. With regard to the normative moral theory of consequentialism, people should act to produce pleasurable or desired consequences. In euthanasia, patients with terminal illnesses experience pain and other disease-associated stresses; as such, terminating their lives results in mitigating the effects of terminal conditions. Contrarily, murder entails the unlawful killing of another person without mize pain or m