Case Study: Active Euthanasia with Parental Consent Euthanasia, the ‘mercy killing’, has definitely been one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas. Euthanasia is defined “an action or an omission, aimed at and causally implicated in, the death of another for her/his own sake” (Foot, 1997, as cited in Robert, 2004, p. 145). Euthanasia differs from murder, because the action causing the death is for the sake of the person to be killed. Someone might say that the person wanted to die anyway, so why ending his or her lives can be wrong? Is active euthanasia –acting to end the life of another- ever a right moral action? It is not an easy debate whether it is right or wrong to help end someone’s life. Some people might argue that
367). Thus, Andrea should have been given a choice to express her wishes. If Andrea does not wish to have a quicker death to put her suffering to an end, active euthanasia should not be permitted. First of all, it would not satisfy the definition of euthanasia “for the sake of the other person” – in other words, it has to be shown that Andrea, the person in question, wanted or would have wanted it (Robert, 2004, p. 146). Thus, the act would be a murder rather than euthanasia. Kant’s deontological theory would not permit a murder. Second of all, killing her without her wish would be against ethical principle ‘non-maleficence’ – do no harm. As long as the person in question considers the life is bearable, then life itself is a benefit (Battin, 1987 as in as in Boetzkes & Waluchow, 2000). Therefore, taking her life away in this scenario would mean doing harm (maleficence) to Andrea. However, if Andrea seeks assistance in ending the misery, and with the parents’ consent in this case, by all means, active euthanasia must be permitted. Active euthanasia is justifiable, according to the ethical theories –Act utilitarianism, Aristotle virtue ethics, and Feminist ethics. According to Act utilitarianism, a right thing to do is