Biomedical Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Biomedical Ethics - Essay ExampleIn most cases than not, passive voice mercy killing results to prolonged suffering for the patient because of cessation of pain alleviating interventions. This is in direct contravention to the foundation upon which mercy killing is laid as a principle of alleviating patients pain and suffering. On the other hand, active euthanasia involves the injection or administration of a substance(S) that causes the swift and painless death of the patient. This is more in line with the original intentions of allowing euthanasia to be an option in medical practice. Active euthanasia ensures that the patient does not suffer anymore as long as the decision is consensual and legal. The AMAs postulation offer be construed as an attempt to shield doctors from blame that might emerge from controversial ethical issues that result from cases where euthanasia is compound. Another explanation for AMAs nutrition for passive euthanasia over active euthanasia despite the clear indications of which mode is more effective and considerate is to hold dear/control doctors from using euthanasia unconventionally in practice.Where death is concerned, there is no chaste justification for the phenomena because death is always perceived as a bad thing by everyone in society. The AMAs distinction between passive and active euthanasia as a moral question does not harbor to euthanasia because of the moral conditioning of society with regard to death. It would be more appropriate to apply ethical considerations on the matter of euthanasia.... This is more in line with the original intentions of allowing euthanasia to be an option in medical practice. Active euthanasia ensures that the patient does not suffer anymore as long as the decision is consensual and legal. The AMAs postulation can be construed as an attempt to shield doctors from blame that might emerge from controversial ethical issues that result from cases where euthanasia is involved (Pence 242). A nother explanation for AMAs support for passive euthanasia over active euthanasia despite the clear indications of which mode is more effective and considerate, is to protect/control doctors from using euthanasia unconventionally in practice. Where death is concerned, there is no moral justification for the phenomena because death is always perceived as a bad thing by everyone in society. The AMAs distinction of passive and active euthanasia as a moral question does not apply to euthanasia because of the moral conditioning of society with regard to death. It would be more appropriate to apply ethical considerations on the matter of euthanasia because the way it is punish heavily relies on ethics. The humanitarian principles that support euthanasia are based on the sound morals of alleviating pain and suffering (Pence 309). Thus, AMAs assumption that passive euthanasia is more morally correct than active euthanasia it is a selfish notion meant to serve and protect only one aspect of the cardinal sided affair. The trolley problem presents a situation where one is faced with the difficult task of making a livelihood and death decision between the life of five people or one person. Application of morals in this situation is not appropriate because there is no viable measure or gauge for