Euthanasia

4 Pages 1037 Words

Euthanasia: The Right to die
Webster’s defines Euthanasia as “An easy, painless death; the putting of a person to death painlessly, esp. one in a hopeless condition.” But for the family members of patients on life support it is definitely not an easy or painless decision to make. People like Dr. Kevorkian have reminded us all of our own mortality and our need to think carefully about the kind of society we want to live and to die in but is Euthanasia a moral way to ease the suffering of friends or family?
It is no defense to point to the fact that a person has requested to be killed: "No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted upon him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibilities of any person by whom death may be inflicted upon the person by whom consent is given." claim the lobbyists against Euthanasia. This seems to mean that no one has a right to consent to have death inflicted on him or her because it is too close to playing god. In addition, if a person causes the death of another, the consent of the deceased does not provide the person who caused the death a defense to criminal responsibility. Is there a difference between a person who, at a dying person's request, prepares a poison and leaves it on the bedside for that person to take, and a person who helps the patient to drink it or who administers it directly at the request of a dying person who is unable to take it personally? Is there, in short, a real distinction between killing and letting die? Well, this is the difference between passive and

active euthanasia, and if you believe in euthanasia, you must decide which one is correct or even accept both to be correct depending upon the situation.
We must carefully think through a number of conceptual issues. What is a person? What is death? How does the difference between active and passive function in arguments for and against euthanasia? Is there any d...