Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 15:26:13
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on March 1, 2005, at 10:19:49
> -- It is my understanding that the AMA (although some argue otherwise), Christian churches and some philosophers have accepted the principle and act of "passive" euthenasia but not "active" euthenasia.
Yeah. It is certainly true that a lot more people find passive euthenasia acceptable than active euthenasia...
>Maybe I am off base here, but I find the act of "passive" euthenasia a far less humane act.
ALWAYS a 'far less humane act' or SOMETIMES?
> Passive euthenasia is, as I understand it, more than just do not ressusatate.
'Passive euthenasia' refers to a variety of practices only one of which is 'do not resussatate'.
>As a result, a person is who being passively euthenized could end up suffering for days, weeks, even months. As somebody said in the thread on this topic on the Relationships board, we treat the family pet better.
Yes, that surely happens in some cases.
Rachels is well known for his arguments that there isn't a morally relevant distinction between active and passive euthenasia. If it is acceptable to euthenise someone (and he thinks it is acceptable in SOME cases) then the most humane way should be employed regardless of whether it is 'active' or 'passive'.
> Rachels observes that people think that actively killing someone is morally worse than passively letting someone die. However, they do not differ since both have the same outcome: the death of the patient on humanitarian grounds.
Yes. This is a utilitarian, consequantialist based viewpoint (it looks at the consequences of the act to see whether it is morally justified / acceptable or not). That can be contrasted with intrinsic value theories or theories such as Kant's moral law which say that some acts are good or bad, right or wrong IN THEMSELVES - regardless of consequences. (E.g. It is morally wrong to kill. Active euthenasia is killing. Therefore active euthenasia is morally wrong. And: it is sometimes but not always morally wrong to let die. Passive euthenasia is letting die. Therefore passive euthenasia is sometimes wrong - but not always).
>The difference between the two is accentuated because we frequently hear of terrible cases of active killings, but not of passive killings.
Starting to change though...
With respect to the active / passive distinction consider the following case:
X is on life support.
If X is taken off life support X will die.
According to those who consider active euthanasia to be wrong it is morally unacceptable to give X a lethal injection.
According to those who consider passive euthanasia to be acceptable in some cases it may be acceptable to take X off life support.What is the morally relevant difference between killing and letting die when the consequence is the same? (That is his point - that there is none).
Now in this case the 'active euthenasia' requires someone to ACT in the sense that someone has to ADMINISTER the injection...
Now in this case the 'passive euthenasia' requires someone to ACT in the sense that someone has to TURN OFF the life support...
An action is required either way...
So the 'active' / 'passive' distinction breaks down...It seems arbitrary to consider one acceptable and the other unacceptable.
Surely they are either both acceptable or both unacceptable...
Now the non-consequentialist will try to say that there is something intrinsically different about administering a lethal injection (which is wrong all by itself) and flipping a switch (which is not wrong all by itself).
But this doesn't work (IMO) because the injection can only be referred to as 'lethal' because of the consequences (in the sense that it 'causes death'). It is only 'lethal' because of that consequence.
So 'all by itself' there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with administering and injection...
Likewise with flipping a switch - that doesn't even seem to be a moral action unless we take the consequences into account (I mean it isn't a moral action when I turn on the light)...> And, this debate, which has gone on for centuries, will continue.
Yes. But hopefully the laws will change in the near future IMO.
thanks for your thoughts :-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465020.html