It would be more humanitarian for the physician to participate in active euthanasia and with the approval of the terminally ill patient, and have the physician kill him rather than letting the patient suffer horrendously for the days leading up to his death. Such is the case of the patient with the late stage throat cancer. Suppose a patient is almost certain to die within a few days and is to live with unbearable pain until his death. As a result of his prognosis, the patient asks his physician to terminate his life. According to the conventional doctrines supported by the AMA, the physician can only choose to withhold treatment, and let the patient die from dehydration. I argue that this form of passive euthanasia is morally impermissible and that the correct action is for the doctor to terminate the patient’s life through active
It would be more humanitarian for the physician to participate in active euthanasia and with the approval of the terminally ill patient, and have the physician kill him rather than letting the patient suffer horrendously for the days leading up to his death. Such is the case of the patient with the late stage throat cancer. Suppose a patient is almost certain to die within a few days and is to live with unbearable pain until his death. As a result of his prognosis, the patient asks his physician to terminate his life. According to the conventional doctrines supported by the AMA, the physician can only choose to withhold treatment, and let the patient die from dehydration. I argue that this form of passive euthanasia is morally impermissible and that the correct action is for the doctor to terminate the patient’s life through active