Rachels 'An Analysis Of Active And Passive Euthanasia'

In the article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia” the author Rachels argues that both passive and active euthanasia are permitted. Active euthanasia is purely known as taking a positive action, which is designed to kill the patient who is incurably ill. Passive euthanasia, on the contrary, means easily holding back from doing anything to keep the patient alive. To further explain what Rachels suggests, he uses two cases as an example. First he gives the scenario of Smith who will inherit a large sum of money if his six year old nephew dies. Smith “sneaks” into the bathroom while his nephew is in the bathtub; he pushes his nephew’s head under the water, and drowns him. Smith makes this look like an accident and inherits the money. On the other hand Jones also has a similar scenario. He “sneaks” into the bathroom, he sees his nephew slides, hit his head, and he lands face down in the tub. Jones watched this play out and he’s ready to push his nephew 's head under, if he recovers. He reports the drowning as an …show more content…
Since there isn 't any closing difference, active euthanasia is as morally justified as passive euthanasia.
The argument that Rachel proposed fails to be effective and persuasive. Peter Singer reasons that we have an important obligation to secure and promote the “essentials of human well-being.” This is an aggregable statement, because it is our moral obligation to lend a helping hand to save a life. The life of a human being has a lot of value and significance. We should do everything possible to save a life, even if it involves sacrificing our own lives. This might seem debatable, but honorably it is the correct thing to do. Every life is equally important and we should help save as much lives