In James Rachel’s “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” he specifically argues, “that the traditional distinction between killing and letting die is untenable” (Rachels, 1975, p. 678). Rachels believes killing is not any worse than letting someone die. Therefore, passive euthanasia is not better than active euthanasia. For legal reasons, physicians may have to differentiate the difference between passive and active euthanasia, but, “they should not give the distinction any added authority and weight by writing it into official statement of medical ethics,” (Rachels, 1975, p.678). Active euthanasia is defined as killing the person directly. For example, killing someone by directly giving them a fatal amount of medication to cause an overdose. Passive
…show more content…
The AMA doctrine claims passive euthanasia is more ethically acceptable than active euthanasia. In his first argument, if a patient suffering terrible pain is going to die anyway, it would be unnecessary to prolong his life for a few more days. A few more days will not change the patient’s health status and giving him more medication will only keep him alive for a few more days. In this case, passive euthanasia can be time consuming and unnecessary, causing the patient more suffering. Active euthanasia will have more directive actions and stop the pain instantly. To choose passive euthanasia means to kill the patient indirectly by causing them to suffer more pain …show more content…
Both cases were set in the same scenario where two men would gain a large inheritance if anything happens to their six-year-old cousin. In Smith’s case, he sneaks into the bathroom and intentionally, “drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident,” (Rachels, 1975, p.680). On the other hand, John intends for drown the child in the bath, but as he enters the bathroom, “Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water,” (Rachels, 1975, p.680). The child ends up drowning himself without Jones having to do anything but to watch. Jones does not call for help and allows the kid to continue to
The AMA doctrine claims passive euthanasia is more ethically acceptable than active euthanasia. In his first argument, if a patient suffering terrible pain is going to die anyway, it would be unnecessary to prolong his life for a few more days. A few more days will not change the patient’s health status and giving him more medication will only keep him alive for a few more days. In this case, passive euthanasia can be time consuming and unnecessary, causing the patient more suffering. Active euthanasia will have more directive actions and stop the pain instantly. To choose passive euthanasia means to kill the patient indirectly by causing them to suffer more pain …show more content…
Both cases were set in the same scenario where two men would gain a large inheritance if anything happens to their six-year-old cousin. In Smith’s case, he sneaks into the bathroom and intentionally, “drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident,” (Rachels, 1975, p.680). On the other hand, John intends for drown the child in the bath, but as he enters the bathroom, “Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water,” (Rachels, 1975, p.680). The child ends up drowning himself without Jones having to do anything but to watch. Jones does not call for help and allows the kid to continue to