In the United States of America, the legality of physician-assisted suicide or “Active Euthanasia” has been the topic of a highly debated political controversy. Whether there is a morally relevant difference between “Active Euthanasia” and “Passive Euthanasia”, or more simply between doing and allowing harm is at the center of this dispute. Two American philosophers, James Rachels and Bonnie Steinbock share their outlooks on the topic in their essays Active and Passive Euthanasia (1975) and The Intentional Termination of Life (1979). Steinbock argues that Rachels has misinterpreted the standard view on the subject, or the view in which the American Medical Association has published, and refutes Rachel 's conclusion. However, Rachel 's provides
…show more content…
In 1975, published in New England Journal of Medicine, Rachels wrote an essay discussing the ethics and moral permissibility behind euthanasia titled “Active and Passive Euthanasia”. In this essay, Rachel 's begins by giving his own definition of passive euthanasia saying that it is taking the action of ending or withholding the necessary medical actions to keep someone alive who is otherwise going to die without it. Rachel 's continues by saying that active euthanasia is taking direct action to end the life of someone who is going to die regardless of medical treatment. Rachel 's then links these definition to what he believed was the standard view on euthanasia and cites statements endorsed by the American Medical Association (also known as the AMA). Rachel 's interprets the statement by the American Medical Association which was endorsed by the house of delegates in december of 1973 as “accepted by most doctors”. Rachels goes on to reiterate the statement from the AMA to allude that at a patient 's request, a physician may withhold treatment which would prolong one’s life. However a physician may not take steps to intentionally terminate a patient 's life. Although Rachels says that this doctrine is what is believed to be the …show more content…
In this essay, Steinbock tries to refute the claims about euthanasia presented by James Rachels, and tries to show how Rachel’s misinterpreted the American Medical Association 's doctrine regarding euthanasia. Steinbock states that contrary to Rachel’s interpretation, the AMA does not endorse any type of euthanasia, and that the termination of life is never the goal in a professional medical practice. Steinbock argues that Rachel 's error in his essay was the linkage of ending “extraordinary care” and passive euthanasia. Steinbock says that stoppage of extraordinary care or treatment that would prolong one 's life and creates burden for that patient is not always linked to the intention of death. Steinbock says “there can be a point (to the cessation of life-prolonging treatment) other than an endeavor to bring about the patient’s death,” Steinbock continues to provide examples where withholding treatment does not necessarily mean that this decision was made for the cession of life. However, Steinbock fails to connect these theories in a case where death is certainly eminent and does not address the fact that withholding treatment often leads to pain and suffering before death regardless of
In 1975, published in New England Journal of Medicine, Rachels wrote an essay discussing the ethics and moral permissibility behind euthanasia titled “Active and Passive Euthanasia”. In this essay, Rachel 's begins by giving his own definition of passive euthanasia saying that it is taking the action of ending or withholding the necessary medical actions to keep someone alive who is otherwise going to die without it. Rachel 's continues by saying that active euthanasia is taking direct action to end the life of someone who is going to die regardless of medical treatment. Rachel 's then links these definition to what he believed was the standard view on euthanasia and cites statements endorsed by the American Medical Association (also known as the AMA). Rachel 's interprets the statement by the American Medical Association which was endorsed by the house of delegates in december of 1973 as “accepted by most doctors”. Rachels goes on to reiterate the statement from the AMA to allude that at a patient 's request, a physician may withhold treatment which would prolong one’s life. However a physician may not take steps to intentionally terminate a patient 's life. Although Rachels says that this doctrine is what is believed to be the …show more content…
In this essay, Steinbock tries to refute the claims about euthanasia presented by James Rachels, and tries to show how Rachel’s misinterpreted the American Medical Association 's doctrine regarding euthanasia. Steinbock states that contrary to Rachel’s interpretation, the AMA does not endorse any type of euthanasia, and that the termination of life is never the goal in a professional medical practice. Steinbock argues that Rachel 's error in his essay was the linkage of ending “extraordinary care” and passive euthanasia. Steinbock says that stoppage of extraordinary care or treatment that would prolong one 's life and creates burden for that patient is not always linked to the intention of death. Steinbock says “there can be a point (to the cessation of life-prolonging treatment) other than an endeavor to bring about the patient’s death,” Steinbock continues to provide examples where withholding treatment does not necessarily mean that this decision was made for the cession of life. However, Steinbock fails to connect these theories in a case where death is certainly eminent and does not address the fact that withholding treatment often leads to pain and suffering before death regardless of