Permanently Deleted
Thank you.
In that case I think it should really come down to what the patient wants. I can’t imagine there would be a whole lot of providers that are okay with placing the drugs on the table but would draw the line at injecting the drugs themselves.
I think it would also be a good idea to have all euthanasia requests be required to be reviewed by at least two providers from separate practices, or something like that. I’m just trying to imagine ways to prevent people like political dissidents or minorities or the homeless from being euthanized by providers that are well connected to politicians.
There’s probably better words to describe that difference but english is my 3rd language.
Also I love seeing phrases like this cause they always come from people whom I never would have guessed didn’t speak English as a first language.
Mmm, after reading that we might need to take a step back here, as it seems we may be discussing slightly different things?
To me that paper seemed to be making a case for active euthanasia, stating that it is negligibly different morally from active euthanasia.
I looked up the definitions of active and passive euthanasia and found that active euthanasia is giving a patient drugs that will end their life, whereas passive is simply withholding treatment (at the patient’s request, of course). Now I’m a bit confused, because by that definition passive euthanasia is already legal. In the US, patients over the age of 18 already have the right to refuse treatment of any kind, even if it will result in imminent death.
I was trying to argue that I don’t think a provider who has no moral problem with giving the patient euthanasia drugs would simultaneously have a moral problem with injecting said drugs themselves. I thought this was passive vs active euthanasia, but it turns out that both of these would technically be active.
So, uhh, I’m not really sure where this leaves us lol. Any thoughts?
