Active and Passive Euthanasia

Topic #2: Our authors have identified many forms of euthanasia. After considering their views, what forms, if any, do you think should be made legal or illegal? Or, should it simply be de-criminalized, and so, like abortion, a matter between the individual and their health care provider? (Again, don't forget to offer the reasons you have in support of your view.)

A few pointers to start out:

There are a variety of forms of euthanasia, but only some should be discussed in any detail. Here are the various forms:

• Voluntary euthanasia, where a patient asks for assistance in executing her death, of which there are two types: active and passive.

• Non-voluntary euthanasia, where a patient is incapable of giving consent, of which again there are two types: active and passive.

• Involuntary euthanasia, where a patient is put to death against her wishes.

Of these, a couple may be mentioned, but do not merit any significant examination. These are involuntary euthanasia and voluntary passive euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is when someone is killed against her will – in other words, its murder. Unless one has a defence of murder, this one can be set aside. The other is voluntary passive euthanasia, since all parties to the debate acknowledge that it is morally acceptable. Indeed, informed consent – a patient's right to (1) be informed about her treatment, and (2) refuse that treatment if she so wishes, is a fundamental principle of medical ethics. That leaves the following for detailed discussion:

• Voluntary active euthanasia, where a patient asks for and receives assistance in executing her death.

• Non-voluntary active euthanasia, where a patient cannot give consent but is put to death through some sort of procedure.

• Non-voluntary passive euthanasia, where a patient cannot give consent but has her treatment suspended leading to her death.

So, what do we need to contend with this topic? Perhaps the main issue one is that of consent. As mentioned above, the idea of informed consent plays a pivotal role in most discussions of medical ethics. Underlying this is the idea of self-determination, which includes, among other things the principle that we all have a right to determine what happens to our bodies. In this case, there are basically two opposed camps: those who think that the right to self-determination entails the right to euthanasia, vs. those who think that for one reason or another our right to self-determination does not extend to euthanasia.

Within this basic opposition there are a number of issues that are worth discussing. A key question for voluntary active euthanasia is whether or not engaging the assistance