There are six main types of euthanasia, which are:
Voluntary passive. Voluntary means that the person has
Voluntary active. asked for euthanasia.
Involuntary passive. Involuntary means when a doctor believes
Involuntary active. that the person requires euthanasia.
Non-voluntary passive. Non-voluntary is when the person has no
Non-voluntary active. choice and is given it without any consent.
The two terms used throughout the six types of euthanasia are active and passive. Active means that something has to be done for the euthanasia to take place; an example could be a lethal injection. Passive however, means that the person could be left to die, un-assisted and without the use of any drug or injection.
“Killing is an act in itself where as letting die is an omission, or failure to act.” – this relates to the six types of euthanasia.
The sanctity of life argument relates to the question and means:
“Life is not to be treated badly or discarded thoughtlessly and some people believe human life should be respected above all other forms of life whilst others believe that all life (both human and non-human species) is to be given equal respect and treated as 'sacred' (special).”
Most religions believe humans are special. For instance, they teach that we have a soul (a part of us that lives forever, even after death), and that we have been given an opportunity to have a relationship with God. Some religions, such as Christianity, also teach that humans have been created in 'Gods image'. This means that humans have certain qualities and characteristics that God has as well.
The argument is at first seemingly pointless because it rests upon the assumption that we believe in God, however regardless of this, the argument still works because life is valuable. The argument is still more difficult to hold without religious belief but we would still say that life was valuable even if we had never heard of God. I can prove this point because ‘atheists’ still value life. (An atheist does not believe in any god or religion.)
The doctrine of double effect explains that: “any act has a number of foreseeable consequences, are we responsible for the results we only foresee rather than intend or are we only responsible for results we intend?”
This helps with the understanding of a person in a PVS and how we can treat him
The quality of life theory on the other hand is the most common argument for euthanasia. This term was first created in the 1970’s as a term used to describe, the general welfare of an individual.
The quality of life argument is basically that life isn’t valuable in itself but you make life what it is and why it is worth living.
And we can apply it to the PVS example by assuming he has nothing, if a being has nothing then they are not regarded as a person so we can kill them. If we cannot kill them, surely we can let them die. They will never become a person so it makes no difference in doing so. Letting him die would be an omission as opposed to killing him, which would be an act because letting him die is a failure to act, therefore an omission.
Problems occurring within this argument are that the rules imply that certain types of life are not worth living. This may seen to be controversial towards some people because it devalues life and it isn’t a commodity that can be evaluated.
What makes life valuable is life itself, what is the point of having something of value that you cannot enjoy or use?
A separate argument could be the slippery slope. This argument can be used with many arguments such as legalization. The legalization of cannabis is often looked upon however if it was legal then wouldn’t more harmful drugs become closer and closer to legalization? The argument seems to fall down a slippery slope and others follow.
I can link this argument with euthanasia, if voluntary active euthanasia is allowed, then people would argue why involuntary passive euthanasia is not acceptable.
This could lead to a knock-on effect, which could of started from a small event taking place leading to anything whatsoever.
I believe that removing life from a person in a PVS is acceptable on the grounds that it is authorized with doctors and known to be 100% true that the patient will not recover from the vegetative state he or she is in. I also believe that letting the patient die is equally acceptable as to killing the patient with a lethal drug, letting somebody die is just as bad as killing someone in most cases.