Question by MrSandman: Are doctors who favour “non selection treatment” or passive euthanasia acting selfishly?
This question is for supporters of euthansia!

Some doctors feel quite strongly in their resolve that passive euthansia is more humane than active euthansia.

Why? If the decision has already been taken that death is in the best interest of the patient, is it not more humane to the patient to ensure that death is quick and their suffering is kept to absolute minimum?

In the case of babies with severe spina bifida, passive euthanasia, as I understand it, involves stopping all forms of treatment such as drugs which can drag the process of dying for weeks on end thereby prolonging the agony of both the child and the parents.

By doing this do you think that doctors are trying to morally protect themselves in way that remains consistent with their duties as a medical professional and their allegiance to the hypocratic oath by indirectly having a hand in the death of another human being?
The laws in different countries vary greatly on the subject of euthansia but I’m not interested in the legal aspect.

Best answer:

Answer by Chefed#1
I support active euthanasia .
Passive euthanasia doesn`t ease the pain of dying or hasten it ,
The passive approach is actually cruel .
If I am in pain and terminal I want Sodium Pentathol and then the euthanasia ,
Its like general anesthesia only permanent .

What do you think? Answer below!