blog




  • Essay / Analysis of Active and Passive Euthanasia - 1018

    In James Rachels' article, "Active and Passive Euthanasia", Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James then supports this argument by adding several examples of active and passive euthanasia cases and illustrating that there is no moral difference. The end result and motive are the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally allowing a person to die. I intend to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of active and passive euthanasia. Rachels' first premise is that "passive euthanasia (i.e., refusal of treatment) is permitted in part because it ends a patient's suffering." He then supports this hypothesis by citing a quote from the American Medical Association. This quote essentially asserts that the intentional killing of one human being by another (in this case, active euthanasia) goes against the AMA and is therefore wrong. The withdrawal of treatment necessary to prolong the life of the body by the patient or his immediate family (passive euthanasia) is, however, authorized when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent. Its second premise is that "active euthanasia is a more effective and humane means of ending the patient's suffering than passive euthanasia." To defend this statement, Rachel gives the case of a patient with incurable throat cancer. This patient is sure to die within a few days, even if treatment is continued. The patient does not want to live in agony and asks the doctor to stop the treatment. The doctor's motivations... middle of paper ...... in the cases of Sarah and Naomi were different from a doctor's motivations in the case of active and passive euthanasia. If the doctor's goal is to end suffering, active euthanasia is indeed a faster and therefore more humane way to achieve this. The objection simply objects to the concept of letting die, illustrating the differences in Mary's and Sarah's motivations. The objection does not claim that killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die, nor does it entail why letting an individual die is more beneficial than killing them. Because this objection fails in this way, it does not have a surprising effect on the argument and does not change the main point. Regardless of the situation of letting an individual die, it can still be argued that doing so is morally equivalent to killing an individual, leaving Rachels' argument intact..