Euthanasia

Passive euthanasia is unopposed death.

Active euthanasia is earned suicide.

Why is someone dying a problem for the state?

• If the person is involved in business, family, or any other kind of contract, all these contracts are voided or disturbed.
• Any potentially useful person should be utilized for the benefit of mankind, but by ceasing to exist this person has become useless.
• Most often there are alternatives to death which are better than this irreversible solution.

Passive euthanasia

I like to call this natural euthanasia. This is the death that happens if a person is let alone in a state where they cannot survive on their own.

Passive euthanasia would be unethical if the person can be saved using the existing medical knowledge.

Would it be possible to keep someone alive for long enough for the medical knowledge to expand in a way that allows the revival of that person?

When is passive euthanasia justified?

In the landmark judgment on the Aruna Shanbaug case (pdf, 499KB), the Supreme Court of India notes a lot of things about where and how passive euthanasia is allowed.

Active euthanasia

Active euthanasia is the result of a complicated formula which is roughly equal to the sum of a person’s interest in their own life, the doctor’s confidence in saving or bettering their life, and the state’s interest in keeping that person alive.

In this article - Should a Belgian murderer be allowed euthanasia? - all the sides of this argument are exposed.

Questions to consider

• Is the person making the choice in the right frame of mind?
• Does the doctor propose better alternatives?
• Does the state have a reason to go against the above two?