Active And Passive Euthanasia Summary

In his essay, “ Active and Passive Euthanasia,” by James Rachel he makes the argument that there is nothing morally wrong with Passive Euthanasia that’s given to be acceptable. Passive Euthanasia letting someone die becoming permissible is an acceptance Rachel proves from the behalf standards of medical reasons. Medical reasons doctors can take out tubes, respirator, etc.. “Letting go” is a decision making doctors do for the patient to die having no pain of suffrage anymore. It’s not a consequence for causing a death on purpose, “ the matter of life and death is being decided on irrelevant grounds.” (Rachel, p.290). While Active Euthanasia is the other opposite where people tend to argue about, being “wrong” for killing a person. Active Euthanasia, also known as “killing someone” in this case is useful for doctors to do. His claim for both active and passive seem to fall in the same place causing death. People argue the opposite as of how “ The thought is that killing a person is morally worse than letting that person die.” (Rachel, p. 287). According to what people see there’s a difference of …show more content…
There is a good point he identifies, “ The decision to let a patient die is a subject to moral appraisal in the same way that a decision to kill him would be subject to moral appraisal.” (Rachel, p. 291). Either way the two euthanasia has the same morally outcome. Rachel considers this as an “Faulty Analogy.” Yes they are still a significant moral difference between the two, but that doesn’t mean every instant of active euthanasia is wrong morally. If someone wants to die and they are in terminal situation, but they are physically unable to make it happen than it’s okay for someone else to make it happen for them. The idea being that it can be just voluntary as long as the person is given their