Arguments Against Active Euthanasia

Philosophers have constantly argued over the judicial system’s and the American Medical Association’s (AMA) lenient stance on the acceptance of passive euthanasia but the prohibition of active euthanasia. Rachels (1975) argues that the current conventional doctrine is unsubstantiated and that there is no moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Both lead to the death of the patient, where physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or killing the patient is morally equivalent to letting the patient die. Additionally, Rachels (1975) argues that active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia in many cases and most arguments in favor of the current policy are unsound. In this paper, I will argue in support of Rachels’ claims that active and passive euthanasia are intrinsically the same. I will support this by arguing that active euthanasia is the more humanitarian action than passive euthanasia and that both have identical moral outcomes. …show more content…
It would be more humanitarian for the physician to participate in active euthanasia and with the approval of the terminally ill patient, and have the physician kill him rather than letting the patient suffer horrendously for the days leading up to his death. Such is the case of the patient with the late stage throat cancer. Suppose a patient is almost certain to die within a few days and is to live with unbearable pain until his death. As a result of his prognosis, the patient asks his physician to terminate his life. According to the conventional doctrines supported by the AMA, the physician can only choose to withhold treatment, and let the patient die from dehydration. I argue that this form of passive euthanasia is morally impermissible and that the correct action is for the doctor to terminate the patient’s life through active