ASP129 Sociology Essay: Exploring Active and Passive Euthanasia

This sociology essay delves into the complex topic of euthanasia, specifically focusing on the moral distinctions between active and passive forms. The essay begins by defining euthanasia and its various forms, highlighting the legal and ethical concerns surrounding the practice. It then examines the differences between active euthanasia, where deliberate actions are taken to end a patient's life, and passive euthanasia, where life-sustaining treatments are withheld or withdrawn. The essay explores the perspectives of medical professionals, philosophers, and social workers, addressing issues such as patient consent, the role of suffering, and the potential for misuse. The author also considers the viewpoints of Seneca and other thinkers on end-of-life decisions, and discusses how these factors play out in court cases and judgments. Ultimately, the essay argues that active euthanasia may be a better process because it reduces the time span of patient suffering, emphasizing the importance of patient consent in this sensitive discourse. The essay concludes by acknowledging the societal impact of these practices.

Running head: SOCIOLOGY
Sociology
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1SOCIOLOGY
The purpose of the following essay is to discuss about the moral distinction between the
active and passive euthanasia. Euthanasia is a practice of bringing death to the human beings
who are helpless and they have very little chances of surviving. This is generally done give relief
to those ailing human beings from the suffering. This term ‘euthanasia’ has derived from the
Greek word ‘euthanatos’ that means easy death for the people (Nuland 1995). Therefore, the
terms of active and passive euthanasia will be discussed in this paper with the ethical concerns
and issues. In some countries this practice is something illegal and unethical. This is why many
issues have been seen regarding the approach to euthanasia. The factor of active and passive
euthanasia and their differences would be discussed in this paper. There are many ethical,
religious and practical considerations in this concern. The moral distinctions and its effects on
real life situations would be addressed as well.
Active euthanasia is generally a practice in which medical practitioners do not see any
chance of survival of patients. They deliberately do something so death is caused for those
human beings. This is done with to relieve the human beings from the extreme level of suffering.
Passive euthanasia is another kind of euthanasia in which the medical professionals do not
provide life support systems to the ailing patients and necessary things are not practiced in this
issue (Nuland 1995). Therefore, the patients lose his or her life because of the proper medical
facilities. Thus the medical professionals stop taking effective measures to save the lives of the
human beings. Therefore, those individuals would die because of the lack of medical care. The
ways in which passive euthanasia can be performed are switching off the life support machines
in the hospitals, not providing life saving drugs to the patients, disconnecting the feeding tubes
from the patients and not going through a proper surgery by which the lives of the human beings
could be saved. This is how both the active and passive euthanasia systems could be carried out.

2SOCIOLOGY
The voluntary euthanasia also has some differences from that of the attempted suicide.
The moral judgments are very effective in this scenario. One of the most important issues in this
matter is that the thoughts of attempted suicide come from depression, extreme anxiety,
hopelessness in life and such things. This comes despite the fact that those people are physically
fit enough (Nuland 1995). On the other hand, voluntary euthanasia comes from a scenario where
the patients have no option to survive from life threatening diseases. The life support systems
might not work properly and they would lose all desires of living. In this situation, some patients
appeal to the legislation to get killed so they can be relieved from their extreme pain and
suffering.
Critics have explained the fact that there are many people in this world who might not
have the means to kill themselves despite their ultimate intention is to die. This inability of those
people will lead them to get frustrated of their lives still they will not have the proper things that
would make them die (Bowie et al. 2004). Therefore, the question of active euthanasia comes
into context. In this context some of the moral differences would be highlighted. There are some
very subtle differences between these two things. Some people are of the opinion that it is
acceptable to hold the treatment because there is no hope of survival for the patient. On the other
hand, the killing of patients through deliberate acts cannot be accepted at all. According to the
critics, few medical professionals have opined that it saves them moral and ethical issues if they
can follow passive euthanasia. They will not have to take any deliberate acts to kill those
patients. So, the doctors and other medical professionals can opt not to provide medical support
to those patients so patients would slowly die.
It is morally incorrect for one to take away his or her life. Many social workers have been
working on it to make distressed and helpless people convinced that it is not the final thing to do

3SOCIOLOGY
through ending the life (Bowie et al. 2004). The life is a mixture of joy and sorrow. Negative
periods will always come in one’s life but they will have to accept those things and progress to
build up a new life with hope. The thoughts and viewpoints of Seneca can be addressed in this
scenario. It is because frail old people attempt to take their own lives because they lose all the
hopes and excitement in their lives (White 2003). They live a traumatic live and they want to end
it seriously. Therefore, it would only be possible for those older people to refrain from killing
themselves when they would understand the real meaning of their lives. On the other hand, some
people have opined in this context that there are no such differences between the active and
passive euthanasia. They have reflected their opinions by saying that the concept of passive
euthanasia is a complete non sense since it talks about stopping the medical treatment programs
and not kill the patient deliberately. They have put forward the question if stopping the medical
treatment act is at all a good thing to do. They think it is a deliberate act as well.
Here the morality and ethics plays a big part. The aspect of not carrying out the treatment
will require someone to turn off the switches. So, this act of turning off the switches is a
deliberate act as well. So, the distinction between active and passive euthanasia only becomes a
myth (White 2003). After that, active euthanasia is a process in which the doctor takes up the
action through which the patient would die. On the contrary, passive euthanasia is a process in
which the doctor stops the treatment and lets the patient die. So, it is quite clear that the activities
of the doctor quite related to both these issues (Keown 2018). Another factor should be
highlighted in this issue. It is the fact of level of pain and suffering of the ailing patients. This
process is aimed at decreasing the pain of the patients and let the patient die. Therefore, in active
euthanasia this process is aggravated as actions are taken to kill the person. So, it is a very clean

4SOCIOLOGY
process and takes less time as well. It will cause less pain for the patients as well (Banović and
Turanjanin 2014).
Through the above readings, it has been identified that it is the intentions of the doctor or
physician whether he would want his patient to be killed by his direct activities or by
withdrawing the treatment. If all the medical interventions are withdrawn, it will lead to passive
euthanasia that will cause more suffering for the patients. In several countries, this act of
euthanasia is banned legally, be it active or passive (Keown 2018). If the patients are suffering
from an illness that cannot be cured might go on to ask their doctors and physicians to end their
lives. This is similar to murder the patients. This means that the physicians do not have the right
to kill patients despite considering his or her painful position. Therefore, this moral distinction
between active and passive euthanasia does not have a place to be discussed because this act
itself is illegal (Ten Have and Welie 2014). On the other hand, some people have requested to
change the law and make it simple enough to provide the doctors with the power so they can act
legally as per the desires of the patient. This will reduce the suffering of the patient since he will
die.
There are some instances where this factor has been a huge issue. In several court cases
and judgments, it has been seen that this practice has been banned in Netherlands. Therefore,
there have been many problems regarding this as well (Annadurai, Danasekaran and Mani 2014).
In Germany, doctors were able to provide or recommend the means by which this act of
euthanasia could take place. However, they did not have the rights to provide that particular
substance to those patients (Ten Have and Welie 2014). So, it is very clear that some people have
questioned in favor of active euthanasia and some have argued in favor of passive euthanasia
(Nordqvist 2016). When a patient refuses to take treatment and wait for his or her death, it

5SOCIOLOGY
becomes the responsibility of the doctors to obey his desire. This would be a right action from
both legal and moral perspectives. Thus active euthanasia is a better process because it reduces
the time span of patient suffering (Annadurai, Danasekaran and Mani 2014).
On a concluding note, it can be said that both these types of euthanasia have been
practiced in the society during sometime or the other. Therefore, it repercussions on the minds of
the people in the society would be an important factor as well. The active euthanasia will work
better because it will reduce the time of patient suffering. The consent of the patient is probably
the most important thing in this discourse.

6SOCIOLOGY
References and Bibliography
Annadurai, K., Danasekaran, R. and Mani, G., 2014. 'Euthanasia: Right to die with
dignity'. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 3(4), p.477.
Banović, B. and Turanjanin, V., 2014. Euthanasia: murder or not: a comparative
approach. Iranian journal of public health, 43(10), p.1316.
BANOVIĆ, B., Turanjanin, V. and MILORADOVIĆ, A., 2017. An ethical review of euthanasia
and physician-assisted suicide. Iranian journal of public health, 46(2), p.173.
Bowie, G.L., Michaels, M.W., Solomon, R.C. and Fogelin, R.J., 2004. Twenty questions: An
introduction to philosophy. Thomson/Wadsworth.
Keown, J., 2018. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation.
Cambridge University Press.
Nordqvist, C., 2016. Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Medical News Today.
Nuland, S.B., 1995. How we die: Reflections on life's final chapter. Vintage.
Paterson, C., 2017. Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach. Routledge.
Sulmasy, D.P., Ely, E.W. and Sprung, C.L., 2016. Euthanasia and physician-assisted
suicide. Jama, 316(15), pp.1600-1600.
Ten Have, H. and Welie, J.V., 2014. Palliative sedation versus euthanasia: an ethical
assessment. Journal of pain and symptom management, 47(1), pp.123-136.

7SOCIOLOGY
White, J.E., 2003. Contemporary Moral Problems: War and Terrorism. Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.