The central ethical issue is whether it would be morally permissible to euthanize a patient if consent is given. Indeed, there are situations in which it would be morally permissible to euthanize a patient as long consent is given.
Euthanasia is either “directly or indirectly bringing about the death of another person for that person’s sake”(626). To put it another way, the patient end result is death from a physician or a nurse. Furthermore, there are several types of euthanasia: the euthanasia described earlier is either active voluntary euthanasia or passive voluntary euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia is the direct causing of death or mercy killing with the consent of the patient, while passive voluntary euthanasia is the restraining or departing life-sustaining tools with the consent of the patient. The key word for this ethical issue is consent. Consent is the key word. If consent is not given, then the euthanasia would be consider as nonvoluntary. To put it simply, nonvoluntary means the patient does not give consent. As previously mention, as long as the …show more content…
For example, Terri Schiavo: she received trauma, resulting her in a vegetative state. If her husband is indeed correct, then pulling her tubes- passive voluntary euthanasia- was morally permissible. In other words, Terri autonomy was heard and acted upon. Patient autonomy is morally permissible and an important right; therefore, euthanasia- with patient consent- is morally permissible. Furthermore, euthanizing a patient who have terminal illness or futile treatment are seen morally permissible. Futile treatment or medical futility is “the alleged pointlessness or ineffectiveness of administering particular treatment”(85). The two are considered morally permissible because it is relieving the pain and suffering for a patient. On the contrary, euthanasia can be seen as morally
Euthanasia is either “directly or indirectly bringing about the death of another person for that person’s sake”(626). To put it another way, the patient end result is death from a physician or a nurse. Furthermore, there are several types of euthanasia: the euthanasia described earlier is either active voluntary euthanasia or passive voluntary euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia is the direct causing of death or mercy killing with the consent of the patient, while passive voluntary euthanasia is the restraining or departing life-sustaining tools with the consent of the patient. The key word for this ethical issue is consent. Consent is the key word. If consent is not given, then the euthanasia would be consider as nonvoluntary. To put it simply, nonvoluntary means the patient does not give consent. As previously mention, as long as the …show more content…
For example, Terri Schiavo: she received trauma, resulting her in a vegetative state. If her husband is indeed correct, then pulling her tubes- passive voluntary euthanasia- was morally permissible. In other words, Terri autonomy was heard and acted upon. Patient autonomy is morally permissible and an important right; therefore, euthanasia- with patient consent- is morally permissible. Furthermore, euthanizing a patient who have terminal illness or futile treatment are seen morally permissible. Futile treatment or medical futility is “the alleged pointlessness or ineffectiveness of administering particular treatment”(85). The two are considered morally permissible because it is relieving the pain and suffering for a patient. On the contrary, euthanasia can be seen as morally