Qn. 1
The ideas in the American Medical Association (AMA) policy distinguish active and passive euthanasia by permitting passive and forbidding active. The AMA prohibits the intentional killing of any human being. The body also discourages physicians from participating in activities whose sole agenda is to end a persons life . However, medical professionals are in agreement that it could be permissible to hasten the process of transition to death. This is done by withholding treatment from a patient who has no chances of recovery. This is passive euthanasia. It is considered more ethical than active euthanasia, although active euthanasia is faster. The AMA also requires practitioners to evaluate the basis of physician assisted suicide on a case to case merit. The AMA argues both angles from a moral point of view unlike Rachel who argues on medical grounds.
Qn. 2
Rachel distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia by describing the effects of both options. He quantifies this by describing the quality of life that the patient experiences between deciding that death is inevitable and actually dying. Rachel argues that the amount of suffering that is avoided is the only difference. He considers it more gentle to carry out an active euthanasia, than prolonging suffering after withdrawing treatment. Though both choices will lead to death, one patient will suffer less. The rationale behind his argument is that passive euthanasia may result in an extended period of suffering before a natural death occurs. On the other hand, active euthanasia would provide immediate relief once the decision to withdraw treatment is made. According to Rachel, the terms passive and active are just legal descriptions which mean the same thing. In both scenarios, a decision is made so he considers both synonymous.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Qn.3
Rachel considers passive euthanasia unkind because the treatment is withdrawn from the patient. While this will eventually lead to death, the patient may experience more suffering. Rachel considers active euthanasia for example, through lethal injection, to be a better option because it promptly eases the patient's suffering . Basically, Rachel does not believe that killing someone on medical grounds is worse than allowing someone to die. He argues that the point of euthanasia is to end unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, some forms of treatment are necessary to alleviate treatment before the imminent death. He argues that it defies logic to withdraw treatment that provided relief just because it does not cure the patient. For example, letting a patient die of dehydration is more cruel or just as wrong as active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia therefore negates the humanitarian basis for withdrawal of treatment. He disagrees with the stand taken by the AMA because passive euthanasia may in fact lead to more suffering.
Qn. 4
The AMA doctrine can lead to making life and death choices on irrelevant grounds. For example, most special needs children often have both developmental and physical problems. The special needs child may then need treatment to address the physical problem and provide better outcomes for mortality. Parents of such a child may withhold the treatment because they do not wish to be laboured with his upbringing. It is, therefore, unethical to allow a special needs child to die slowly instead of treating them. Such a decision is unnecessary, inhuman and not practical. Another example is that of the incapacitated patient who has no ability to talk. The decision to euthanise may be made on his behalf despite his willingness to live. The AMA doctrine gives physicians and next of kin too much liberty to exercise their moral judgement.
Qn. 5
People believe that killing someone is worse than letting someone die. Killing someone requires deliberate effort, and sometimes requires strategic planning to carry out the deed. Killing is thought to be done for gain or some sort of benefit to the killer. Killing is also compared to the cold blooded murder that is observed outside medical grounds. Letting someone die may not be deliberate. It may be accidental or inevitable. However, medical decisions are not made with the aim of benefitting the health care professionals in any way. In a medical setting, both cases eventually result in death though the duration may be differ in some way. Killing is perceived to be worse than letting to die because no human being is in a position to conclude the moral equivalent of either. The action itself and not the consequences is used to determine the morality of each action. The motive behind the action also creates the basis for this belief.
Qn.6
Rachel believes that there is no moral difference between killing someone and letting them die. Both circumstances result in loss of life. He further argues that letting someone die is the same as killing. This is true in medical care because both are seen as a course of action. Rachel raises the point that both these decisions depend entirely on the exact circumstances. For instance, letting a patient who is curable die ,may be morally worse than treating a patient whose death is inevitable. The perception of the observer is the thing that causes distinction between both circumstances. Rachel argues that the two positions are morally equivalent because they are based on a decision to take or not to take certain actions. Once again, the issue of motive comes up. Judgment is influenced by perception of motive.
Qn.7
Rachel believes that the AMA makes a mistake in defining cessation of treatment as not the same as the intentional termination of another persons life. This is because he believes that doctors and other medical healthcare professionals should only apply this standard from a legal point of view. He argues that morally, a doctor should be guided by the patient's need only. This is because the medical records that monitor doctors conduct are filled at a medics' discretion. The distinction in writing differentiates terms that essentially mean the same thing. The cessation of treatment that has the potential to prolong life, may be termed to be equivalent to termination of life. The decision ultimately terminates life by cutting shirt the number of days a person may live. His assertion is that the AMA is contradictory in its approach to euthanasia.
