In my attempt to argue that all forms of euthanasia are immoral and should not be performed, it is reasonable to attack the most moral sounding form first. In my opinion, the most morally plausible form is passive euthanasia. To show the implausibility of passive euthanasia, all one has to do is look at the reasons why euthanasia is being performed in the first place. The whole point of euthanasia is to provide people with a quick and painless death. Active euthanasia surpasses passive euthanasia in attaining both of these conditions. For the condition of being quick, active kills instantly, whereas passive takes time for the patient to die of their disease. For the condition of being painless, active once again kills immediately and thus removes all pain immediately, whereas passive causes (at the very least) some amount of emotional pain to the patient. The fact that active is better than passive euthanasia may not label passive euthanasia to be immoral, but I believe that it clearly rules out passive euthanasia as an acceptable method of providing euthanasia. Therefore in all cases of euthanasia, active euthanasia must be chosen over passive euthanasia.
Since we have managed to eliminate passive euthanasia as a viable option, we are left with the alternative form, active euthanasia. According to Daniel Callahan (Mapes 75), the historical role of the physician is one which tries to cure or comfort patients. Accepting a policy where active euthanasia is considered moral, in essence, says that a physician may also bring death to patients. This statement creates many problems not only for the physician but also for all of society. By allowing active euthanasia, we are in fact stating that killing an innocent human being is acceptable as long as there are sufficient circumstances to warrant such a killing. This lies on a slippery slope, at the bottom of which is the possibility of other laws allowing us to kill innocent people based on circumstances.
