‘There is no moral difference between medical non-intervention and medical intervention to end
a patient's life’ Discuss(40)
Medical non-intervention is passive euthanasia. This is the decision to withhold or withdraw
medical treatment or life support that is keeping a person alive. Medical intervention is active
euthanasia. This is a deliberate action performed by a third party to kill a person, for example
through lethal injection. This is illegal in the UK. Through critical analysis, it will become clear
that there is a difference between medial non-intervention and medical intervention in terms of
religious understanding but there is no difference in outcome..
There is a moral difference between medical intervention and medical non-intervention as
medical intervention goes against the religious principle of sanctity of life. Sanctity of life is a
vitalist principle which encompasses the belief that life is sacred and is a gift from God, ‘which
they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful’. We must preserve life as we are made with
a ‘spark of divinity’. We should thus follow the primary precepts, especially the precept of
preservation of life in order to allow for human flourishing and to allow for humans to achieve
their telos. Therefore, the deliberate ending of life, medical intervention, is wrong as it violates
the fundamentals of the sanctity of life and to the Catholic Church it is a ‘considered as a
rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan’. Active euthanasia is an apparent good that
appears to alleviate the suffering of the person and fails to recognise the greater good which is
related to the intrinsic nature of life and the mystery of God’s greater plan. The lethal injection
stops the body doing what it naturally seeks to do whereas withdrawing burdensome treatment
makes a person more comfortable as they approach their end. Acting to end life is of a different
order: the intention is different, the treatment of life is different. With medical non-intervention
there is a surrender to the natural order of things, rather than a human intervention. Therefore,
there is a difference between medical non-intervention and medical intervention as medical
non-intervention violates a fundamental religious principle and goes against God’s loving plan.
There is a moral difference between medical non intervention and medical intervention because
medical non intervention is morally worse than medical intervention. Medical non-intervention is
the withdrawal from treatment, a surrender to the natural order of things. The withdrawal of
treatment is done with the intention of not prolonging a life full of needless suffering. This is
currently legal in the UK and is often the preferred route of actions for many individuals and
families. Yet, such a route to death is much worse than medical intervention, active euthanasia,
because it leads to a long drawn put death that is painful and full of suffering. As emphasised by
Eos in Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, ‘it is better to die than to drag out my lingering days in
anguish’. In passive euthanasia, the end of life is drawn out as the quality of life gradually
reduces until death finally hits. Danial James, a rugby player, was victim to a rugby scrum which
consequently left him paralysed from his waist down. With his quality of life reduced and his
ability to pursue his dreams abruptly cut short, he pursued active euthanasia, medical
intervention, and chose to die at Dignitas. This allowed him to die with memories of his mobility
and memories of happiness. Without active euthanasia, his lingering days would have been
filled with ‘anguish’. Therefore, as convincingly argued by Daniel Maguire, a proportionality
a patient's life’ Discuss(40)
Medical non-intervention is passive euthanasia. This is the decision to withhold or withdraw
medical treatment or life support that is keeping a person alive. Medical intervention is active
euthanasia. This is a deliberate action performed by a third party to kill a person, for example
through lethal injection. This is illegal in the UK. Through critical analysis, it will become clear
that there is a difference between medial non-intervention and medical intervention in terms of
religious understanding but there is no difference in outcome..
There is a moral difference between medical intervention and medical non-intervention as
medical intervention goes against the religious principle of sanctity of life. Sanctity of life is a
vitalist principle which encompasses the belief that life is sacred and is a gift from God, ‘which
they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful’. We must preserve life as we are made with
a ‘spark of divinity’. We should thus follow the primary precepts, especially the precept of
preservation of life in order to allow for human flourishing and to allow for humans to achieve
their telos. Therefore, the deliberate ending of life, medical intervention, is wrong as it violates
the fundamentals of the sanctity of life and to the Catholic Church it is a ‘considered as a
rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan’. Active euthanasia is an apparent good that
appears to alleviate the suffering of the person and fails to recognise the greater good which is
related to the intrinsic nature of life and the mystery of God’s greater plan. The lethal injection
stops the body doing what it naturally seeks to do whereas withdrawing burdensome treatment
makes a person more comfortable as they approach their end. Acting to end life is of a different
order: the intention is different, the treatment of life is different. With medical non-intervention
there is a surrender to the natural order of things, rather than a human intervention. Therefore,
there is a difference between medical non-intervention and medical intervention as medical
non-intervention violates a fundamental religious principle and goes against God’s loving plan.
There is a moral difference between medical non intervention and medical intervention because
medical non intervention is morally worse than medical intervention. Medical non-intervention is
the withdrawal from treatment, a surrender to the natural order of things. The withdrawal of
treatment is done with the intention of not prolonging a life full of needless suffering. This is
currently legal in the UK and is often the preferred route of actions for many individuals and
families. Yet, such a route to death is much worse than medical intervention, active euthanasia,
because it leads to a long drawn put death that is painful and full of suffering. As emphasised by
Eos in Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, ‘it is better to die than to drag out my lingering days in
anguish’. In passive euthanasia, the end of life is drawn out as the quality of life gradually
reduces until death finally hits. Danial James, a rugby player, was victim to a rugby scrum which
consequently left him paralysed from his waist down. With his quality of life reduced and his
ability to pursue his dreams abruptly cut short, he pursued active euthanasia, medical
intervention, and chose to die at Dignitas. This allowed him to die with memories of his mobility
and memories of happiness. Without active euthanasia, his lingering days would have been
filled with ‘anguish’. Therefore, as convincingly argued by Daniel Maguire, a proportionality
