Final answer:
Evidence that supports euthanasia in relieving suffering includes Peter Singer's utilitarian view that it is moral to help avoid unnecessary pain, James Rachels's argument that active euthanasia is preferable as it brings an immediate end to suffering, and clinical evidence indicating prolonged suffering can occur with passive euthanasia.
Step-by-step explanation:
Evidence Supporting Euthanasia as a Means to Relieve Suffering
Throughout the debates surrounding euthanasia, a number of philosophers and ethicists offer evidence in support of euthanasia as a practice that can help relieve suffering. Here are three pieces of evidence that can be considered:
- Peter Singer's utilitarian perspective argues that euthanasia may be morally permissible if it helps avoid unnecessary pain of a prolonged death, and if the person's quality of life is no longer present. He supports the view that helping someone die to avoid suffering is a moral act.
- James Rachels's comparison of active vs. passive euthanasia suggests that active euthanasia is preferable as it leads to the immediate cessation of suffering. Rachels posits that since both active and passive euthanasia share the same intent -- to end suffering -- the method that accomplishes this more quickly and effectively is ethically superior.
- Clinical evidence suggests that patients may experience prolonged suffering when only offered passive euthanasia. Hospice survival studies, such as the ones led by Connor et al. (2007), support the notion that there might be a place for active measures in alleviating suffering at the end of a patient's life.
In conclusion, the goal of alleviating suffering, the preferability of immediate cessation of pain, and clinical observations are key evidences that support euthanasia as a means to relieve suffering.