Passive and Active Euthanasia

The idea that we have to put time and money into deciding whether or not euthanasia is morally and ethically acceptable is a scary one. But, it is something that many doctors have to face and deal with every day.

The main difference between active and passive euthanasia is that passive euthanasia is in essence "watching somebody die" without interfering, and active euthanasia is taking part in the death of another person for a medical benefit. Currently, active euthanasia is illegal and punishable by charges of murder or criminal negligence. In the case of somebody who is in excruciating pain and treatment has ceased to work and death is quickly inevitable, the patient may beg and plead with their doctor and family to ease their pain with an injection or whatever means it may take to let them die and end their suffering, a doctor is not allowed to indulge that patient with their last wish.

They are forced to watch their patient suffer for their brief time left on this earth. This to some doctors directly violates their code of "Do No Harm", as they feel this is causing more unnecessary harm to somebody who is already aware of their imminent death. This is the idea behind passive euthanasia.

Many doctors who are opposed to the criminal charges placed on active euthanasia present the question of which is more immoral, putting somebody out of their misery? Or forcing somebody who is going to die no matter what to suffer their last breath? This question is presented in a different way to gain a different look on the differences between active and passive euthanasia.

Man A stands to gain a great inheritance if some fatal accident occurred to his nephew. So Man A creeps into the room when his nephew is taking a bath and holds his head underwater until he is dead. However, Man B also stand to gain something from the untimely death of his nephew. As he creeps into the bathroom to murder his nephew he sees him slip in the tub and hit his head on the side knocking him unconscious face down in the water. Man B does nothing as his nephew is slowly drowning unconsciously. Now is Man B the better person because he did not actually murder his nephew but simply failed to do something about it? Or is Man A worse for committing the crime. The same desired outcome is achieved and both men or guilty of the most heinous crimes.

Why can't this be acceptable in the opposite of circumstances? A doctor with the intention of doing everything they can to make their patients stay on earth as painless as possible is forced to watch someone suffer and die with no hope of recovery. With the current laws in place that doctor is not allowed to do as the doctors code orders and alleviate that persons suffering.

Thomas A Mappes and Jane S. Zembaty. "Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy." Passive and Active Euthanasia. James Rachels, Reprinted from The New England Journal Of Medicine, Vol 292, No 2. 1975, pp. 78-80