James Rachels and J Gay-Williams are firm believers that euthanasia is immoral and unethical under all circumstances. They understand why others disagree, but when it comes down to whether it is right or wrong, they believe that euthanasia, of any kind, is murder. This raises several agonizing moral dilemmas.
Euthanasia is derived from the Greek word euthanatos, which means easy death. Essentially, this is deliberately ending someone’s life to relieve pain and suffering. There are two forms of euthanasia, Passive and active. Passive euthanasia is where a treatment is withheld from a patient, enabling them to die. Active euthanasia is administering a drug or force that will directly cause death. This is also known as mercy killing. In the United States, passive euthanasia is legal. Rachels believes that both forms are morally equivalent, since both acts end in the death of another.
Rachels begins by stating: “the distinction between active and passive …show more content…
He uses the same example with the infant with both Down’s syndrome and an intestinal obstruction. He believes that, sometimes, parents decide not to have the surgery done, due to the fact that the child has Down’s syndrome, and they believe it would be better for the child to die, than to live with this disability. He states that this situation is absurd. If the life is worth saving, the operation shouldn’t matter. If they believe the life isn’t worth saving, what does it matter if it has an unobstructed intestinal tract? “In either case, the matter of life and death is being decided on irrelevant grounds” (Rachels,290). Currently, there is nothing one can do if the baby is born without intestinal blockage, because you can’t kill the child. The basis on which these circumstances are being decided is, arguably, another good reason why this doctrine should be
Euthanasia is derived from the Greek word euthanatos, which means easy death. Essentially, this is deliberately ending someone’s life to relieve pain and suffering. There are two forms of euthanasia, Passive and active. Passive euthanasia is where a treatment is withheld from a patient, enabling them to die. Active euthanasia is administering a drug or force that will directly cause death. This is also known as mercy killing. In the United States, passive euthanasia is legal. Rachels believes that both forms are morally equivalent, since both acts end in the death of another.
Rachels begins by stating: “the distinction between active and passive …show more content…
He uses the same example with the infant with both Down’s syndrome and an intestinal obstruction. He believes that, sometimes, parents decide not to have the surgery done, due to the fact that the child has Down’s syndrome, and they believe it would be better for the child to die, than to live with this disability. He states that this situation is absurd. If the life is worth saving, the operation shouldn’t matter. If they believe the life isn’t worth saving, what does it matter if it has an unobstructed intestinal tract? “In either case, the matter of life and death is being decided on irrelevant grounds” (Rachels,290). Currently, there is nothing one can do if the baby is born without intestinal blockage, because you can’t kill the child. The basis on which these circumstances are being decided is, arguably, another good reason why this doctrine should be