What is the difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia?
Answer this question based on the following passage.
Euthanasia is often erroneously described
as "mercy killing". Most forms of euthanasia
are, indeed, motivated by (some say:
misplaced) mercy. Not so others. In Greek,
(5) "eu" means both "well" and "easy" and
"Thanatos" is death.
Euthanasia is the intentional premature
termination of another person's life either
by direct intervention (active euthanasia)
(10) or by withholding life-prolonging measures
and resources (passive euthanasia), either
at the express or implied request of that
person (voluntary euthanasia), or in the
absence of such approval (non-voluntary
(15) euthanasia). Involuntary euthanasia -
where the individual wishes to go on living
- is a euphemism for murder.
To my mind, passive euthanasia is immoral.
The abrupt withdrawal of medical treatment,
(20) feeding, and hydration results in a slow and
(potentially) torturous death. Moreover,
passive euthanasia allows us to evade
personal responsibility for the patient's death.
In active euthanasia, the relationship between
(25) the act (of administering a lethal medication,
for instance) and its consequences is direct
and unambiguous.
To qualify as euthanasia, the termination of
life has to be the main and intended aim of
(30) the act or omission that leads to it.
The sanctity and value of life compete with a
host of other equally potent moral demands.
Even the most devout pro-life ethicist accepts
that certain medical decisions - for instance,
(35) to administer strong analgesics – inevitably
truncate the patient's life. Yet, this is
considered moral because the resulting
euthanasia is not the main intention of the
pain-relieving doctor. Moreover, the apparent
(40) dilemma between the two values (reduce
suffering or preserve life) is non-existent.