The AMA's View of Euthanasia
As Thomas Sullivan expressed in his essay, Active and Passive Euthanasia: An Impertinent Distinction, he disagrees with James Rachels' interpretation of the AMA's policy on euthanasia, (the putting to death of a person with an incurable disease). However, the AMA itself states its agreement with Rachels' view of its policy. Much of Sullivan's argument revolves around his assumption that he has support from the AMA, support which he does not have. In Sullivan's essay, he critiques Rachels' arguments and feels that Rachels has misinterpreted the AMA's policy on euthanasia. The policy states that "mercy-killing" is forbidden; however, desisting the use of extraordinary means of sustaining life is permissible. Rachels believes the AMA plays the hypocrite, accepting passive but not active euthanasia, (active euthanasia is the employment of means aimed at putting a suffering patient to death, while passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of any means of life support, whether natural or artificial). On the other hand, Sullivan feels the AMA does not make this distinction. He says that the policy simply demands ordinary treatments but not extraordinary ones. To make the distinction between these means, Sullivan relies on Paul Ramsey's s
Do philosophers have the authority to interpret the AMA's vaguely written policy? Who does have the authority? Only the AMA can say what it meant when it adopted this policy. He assumes the role of defining ordinary and extraordinary means. org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-140. Overall, Sullivan's arguments have not changed my view of active and passive euthanasia. Since 1973, when the above-mentioned policy was released, these two philosophers, and perhaps others, have debated over the policy's connotation. This point is the pith of his argument against Rachels' exposition, a point on which he harps throughout his piece. 986, entitled Legalised Medical Termination of Life: The AMA opposes the participation of a physician, voluntarily or involuntarily, in the termination of a patient's life by the administration of an agent or the use of any means to actively terminate a patient's life (Res. One cannot disregard a person's writings solely on one error, even such a great error as this. Otherwise, it is immoral to use them. He has no connection with the AMA; therefore, we can not assume that he understands the AMA's use of the terms ordinary and extraordinary any better than we can. Therefore, Sullivan believes that the AMA and writer Paul Ramsey side with his ideals.
Common topics in this essay:
Life AMA,
James Rachels',
Paul Ramsey,
Internet According,
Overall Sullivan's,
Paul Ramsey's,
Rachels Sullivan,
Medical Association,
According AMA,
Ramsey Personally,
passive euthanasia,
ama's policy,
interpretation ama's,
policy euthanasia,
extraordinary means,
active passive euthanasia,
active passive,
ama saying,
legalised medical termination,
ordinary extraordinary,
active euthanasia,
patient's life,
medical termination life,
rachels' interpretation ama's,
interpretation ama's policy,
|
Acceptance Essays
