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 Passive and Active Euthanasia, yet Rachel disagrees with it. The doctors job on what they’re doing to an ill patient is correct. Removing treatments of tubes and respirator are permissible to do so. As in giving them in injection is “wrong” in some people's aspect, Rachel proves it’s acceptable to let it happen. No matter between the two, the patients are equivalent to each other. The second premise statement he argues if there is no moral difference between Active and Passive Euthanasia, than passive and active euthanasia is morally acceptable.
…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 consent. Premise three there is no difference between the two. “ If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for human reasons.” (Rachels, p. 291). In this case it’s permissible because there’s reasons for the doctor to let it happen. Either way letting a patient die or taking out a medical treatment is still causing death to be acceptable. The case of Smith and Jones experiment, drowning smith nephew is active. Jones case of his nephew letting him drown isn’t active but hasn’t killed him it’s passive not doing anything. Both of the cases has no moral difference between the two because the nephew died in similar ways. Doctors from doing nothing and to taking out injections has an effect to the doctor. Other people view active as “ killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die.” (Rachel, p.290). Even tho there is consequences, “ active euthanasia is
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 consent. Premise three there is no difference between the two. “ If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for human reasons.” (Rachels, p. 291). In this case it’s permissible because there’s reasons for the doctor to let it happen. Either way letting a patient die or taking out a medical treatment is still causing death to be acceptable. The case of Smith and Jones experiment, drowning smith nephew is active. Jones case of his nephew letting him drown isn’t active but hasn’t killed him it’s passive not doing anything. Both of the cases has no moral difference between the two because the nephew died in similar ways. Doctors from doing nothing and to taking out injections has an effect to the doctor. Other people view active as “ killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die.” (Rachel, p.290). Even tho there is consequences, “ active euthanasia is