Final answer:
True, euthanasia is the act of killing a suffering creature to put it out of its misery, encompassing both passive and active forms as well as voluntary and nonvoluntary based on consent. The moral permissibility of euthanasia is a topic of philosophical debate, with some ethicists supporting it under certain conditions while others raise concerns about ethical implications and the role of physicians.
Step-by-step explanation:
True, killing a suffering creature to put it out of its misery is called euthanasia. This term, which originates from Greek, means "good death" and can refer to either passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia involves withholding or withdrawing treatment, leading to an earlier death than would occur with continued medical intervention. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, involves actively terminating a patient's life through medical means, such as administering a lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia can also be categorized based on consent: voluntary euthanasia (with the patient's request), nonvoluntary euthanasia (the patient is incapable of giving consent), and involuntary euthanasia (against the patient's interests).
Philosophers and ethicists have debated the morality of euthanasia. Some, like James Rachels, argue that active euthanasia may be preferable to passive euthanasia because it can end suffering immediately, while others raise concerns about the potential ethical harm to the community, the sanctity of life, the role of physicians, and the possibility of misuse if euthanasia were widely practiced. In contrast, philosophers like Peter Singer, from a utilitarian perspective, advocate for euthanasia in instances where a person's quality of life has diminished to the extent that the life is no longer worth living, and the pain of prolonged death is avoidable.