Final paper

Running head: NON-VOLUNTARY ACTIVE EUTHANASIA RIGHTS 1

Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia Rights

Kaleena Springsteen

PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Michael Larson

April 24, 2017

- 1 -

[no notes on this page]

NON-VOLUNTARY ACTIVE EUTHANASIA RIGHTS 2

Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia Rights

Should non-voluntary active euthanasia rights be allowed in certain specific cases, such as when

a patient is terminally ill, but not in any other case?

Introduction:

Varelius (2016) notes an existing disagreement between the advocates of non-voluntary

active euthanasia and physicians assisted suicide on when the procedure is permissible. Young

(2007) describes euthanasia as the situation in which terminally ill or injured people or animals

are killed to end further suffering. Non-voluntary active euthanasia is a euthanasia done when the

explicit consent of the concerned individual is unavailable for instance in case the patient is a

young child, or the patient is in a persistent vegetative state. Being active euthanasia, the killing

is made by a medical professional in a painless manner. Non-voluntary active euthanasia is done

using a lethal injection or by discontinuing life supporting systems. Non-voluntary active

euthanasia has its advantages and disadvantages.

Position Statement:

To start with, euthanasia should be allowed for terminally ill patients to save them from

pain. Young (2007) argues that the process saves a patient not only from pain and suffering but

also from committing suicide, thus making the process beneficial to the patient. This is so

because suicide may be a traumatic or even horrifying experience the patients loved ones.

Euthanasia is considered as ways of saving resources such as money and hospital space,

especially when the patient has no chances of recovering. Another point is that no matter

precious life is, a person should not be forced to stay alive. If a person is in much pain from a

condition he or she cannot recover from, such a person may have the right to his or her life to be

- 2 -

1

2

3

4

1. Should non-voluntary

active euthanasia rights be

allowed in certain specific

cases, such as when

a patient is terminally ill,

but not in any other case?

Maybe reword to simplify.

[Michael Larson]

2. Varelius (2016)

Who is Varelius? Why do we

want to know what s/he

thinks? Tell us. [Michael

Larson]

3. Position Statement:

Below is much more than a

single statement. I don't

know what your position

statement might be. [Michael

Larson]

4. Young

Who is Young? [Michael

Larson]

NON-VOLUNTARY ACTIVE EUTHANASIA RIGHTS 3

ended. Trying to do anything possible to keep a terminally ill person as the law requires is not

medically sound, wise or even compassionate. At such a point, all interventions should be

targeted to alleviating pain for both the patient and the patient’s loved ones (Varelius, 2016).

Supporting Reason:

Everyone has the right to remain alive no matter what, however, no one has the right to

endure pain, and especially the condition in which the person is cannot be recovered. Arguing

basing on rights, a person has explicit right to die. On a libertarian argument, death is a private

matter, and if it means no harm to others as well as the state, other people have no right to

interfere with such a decision to die. The health resources are scarce; hence, using them to

support a person who has no chance to recover is not prudent.

Opposing Reason:

People against non-voluntary active euthanasia argue that no one has the right to

determine when the life of another person should end. They also argue that only God has the

right to end the life of a person. The slippery slope argument is based on the issue that making

euthanasia legal could lead to significant unintended changes in the society or health care

system. For instance, very ill people may feel like a burden to the family or caretakers and feel

pressured to consider euthanasia. The alternative argument is that mental health treatment and

palliative care means that a person has no reason to feel that he or she is suffering intolerably.

According to the argument, if a person is given the right care, in the appropriate environment, he

or she has no reason not to have painless and dignified natural death.

- 3 -

1

2

3

1. no one has the right to

endure pain,

So, if I want to endure pain,

then I cannot? I don't know

what sort of "right" you have

in mind. This is not a legal

right, certainly. I can feel pain

right now. Am I prohibited

from that? [Michael Larson]

2. explicit right to die. On a

libertarian argument, death

is a private matter, and if it

means no harm to others as

well as the state, other

people have no right to

interfere

plagiarized from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/e

uthanasia/infavour/infavour_1

.shtml [Michael Larson]

3. They also argue that only

God has the

right to end the life of a

person. The slippery slope

argument is based on the

issue that making

euthanasia legal could lead

to significant unintended

changes in the society or

health care

system.

Plagiarized from

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/

Euthanasiaandassistedsuicid

e/Pages/Arguments.aspx

[Michael Larson]

NON-VOLUNTARY ACTIVE EUTHANASIA RIGHTS 4

References

Bloyd, S. (2009). Euthanasia (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Lucent Books.

Varelius, J. (2016). Active and Passive Physician-Assisted Dying and the Terminal Disease

Requirement. Bioethics, 30(9), 663-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12282

Young, R. (2009). Medically assisted death (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- 4 -

[no notes on this page]