Euthanasia.

The principles of self-determination and individual well-being support the use of voluntary euthanasia by those who do not have moral or professional objections to it. Opponents of this posture cite the ethical wrongness of the act itself and the folly of any public or legal policy permitting euthanasia. Positive consequences of making euthanasia legally permissible respect the autonomy of competent patients desiring it, expand the population of patients who can choose the option, and release the dying patient from otherwise prolonged suffering and agony. Potentially bad consequences of permitting euthanasia include the undermining of the "moral center" of medicine by allowing physicians to kill, the weakening of society's commitment to provide optimal care for dying patients, and, of greatest concern, the "slippery slope" argument. The evaluation of the arguments leads to support for euthanasia, with its performance not incompatible with a physician's professional commitment.     

Euthanasia and cryothanasia

In this article we discuss the moral and legal aspects of causing the death of a terminal patient in the hope of extending their life in the future. We call this theoretical procedure cryothanasia. We argue that administering cryothanasia is ethically different from administering euthanasia. Consequently, objections to euthanasia should not apply to cryothanasia, and cryothanasia could also be considered a legal option where euthanasia is illegal.     

Euthanasia and the active-passive distinction

The author examines various claimed differences between active and passive euthanasia and, if there are differences, whether they are morally significant. He refutes arguments based on acting vs. not acting, intention, double effect, cause of death, and natural law theory. Reichenbach proposes that the most helpful distinction is the one between intentional killing (active euthanasia) and appropriate treatment for the dying or terminally ill (passive euthanasia). Significant moral difference, however, rests on the contention that intentional killing is always wrong and that, all else being equal, dying by natural means is intrinsically good, whereas dying by unnatural means is not.