I. Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of killing or allowing someone to die on the grounds of mercy (Timmons 749).” Euthanasia can itself be subdivided into two categories, active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when a caretaker takes action to bring about the death of another. An example of this type of euthanasia is a doctor injecting a patient with a lethal dose of medication, in turn ending the life of the patient. Passive euthanasia is a situation in which the death of a patient is caused by a caretaker either withholding or withdrawing the patient’s treatment. An example of this type of euthanasia is a doctor removing a patient’s feeding tube, causing the patient to die of starvation. James Rachels, the philosopher
…show more content…
This statement claims that the “intentional termination” of life by another is “contrary” to the AMA’s policy. The doctrine additionally states that withdrawing or withholding treatment, also known as passive euthanasia, is the “decision of the patient and/or his immediate family (Rachels 346).” Therefore, it can be concluded that the American Medical Association is not supportive of active euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, but is more lenient in cases of passive euthanasia. Rachels claims that the main reason people think active euthanasia is morally different than passive is because many believe that there is a substantial difference between killing and letting die. To argue this assertion, Rachels employs the examples of Smith and Jones. In both cases, Smith and Jones would obtain a large inheritance if their six-year old nephew were to somehow die. Smith drowns the child so that the child will die, thus killing him …show more content…
Most cases of killing are worse than most cases of letting die in the real world. In fact, there is a relevant difference between active and passive euthanasia. In the case of active euthanasia, a doctor must do something that directly brings about the patient’s death, such as injecting the patient with a lethal dose of medication. For passive euthanasia, the doctor does not bring about the patient’s death, but rather withdraws or withholds something that is keeping the patient alive. In other words, the doctor causes the death of the patient in active euthanasia while in passive euthanasia, the illness or lack of life supporting measures causes the death of the patient (Rachels 349). In the cases of Smith and Jones, one man let his nephew die while the other man killed his nephew. Obviously, killing is worse because Smith had to physically hold his nephew under the water while Jones did not directly do anything, but did not intervene while he had the chance to save the life of his nephew. Although neither of the men took correct moral actions, the action of Smith directly causing the death of his nephew can and should be seen as a larger moral issue than Jones watching his nephew
This statement claims that the “intentional termination” of life by another is “contrary” to the AMA’s policy. The doctrine additionally states that withdrawing or withholding treatment, also known as passive euthanasia, is the “decision of the patient and/or his immediate family (Rachels 346).” Therefore, it can be concluded that the American Medical Association is not supportive of active euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, but is more lenient in cases of passive euthanasia. Rachels claims that the main reason people think active euthanasia is morally different than passive is because many believe that there is a substantial difference between killing and letting die. To argue this assertion, Rachels employs the examples of Smith and Jones. In both cases, Smith and Jones would obtain a large inheritance if their six-year old nephew were to somehow die. Smith drowns the child so that the child will die, thus killing him …show more content…
Most cases of killing are worse than most cases of letting die in the real world. In fact, there is a relevant difference between active and passive euthanasia. In the case of active euthanasia, a doctor must do something that directly brings about the patient’s death, such as injecting the patient with a lethal dose of medication. For passive euthanasia, the doctor does not bring about the patient’s death, but rather withdraws or withholds something that is keeping the patient alive. In other words, the doctor causes the death of the patient in active euthanasia while in passive euthanasia, the illness or lack of life supporting measures causes the death of the patient (Rachels 349). In the cases of Smith and Jones, one man let his nephew die while the other man killed his nephew. Obviously, killing is worse because Smith had to physically hold his nephew under the water while Jones did not directly do anything, but did not intervene while he had the chance to save the life of his nephew. Although neither of the men took correct moral actions, the action of Smith directly causing the death of his nephew can and should be seen as a larger moral issue than Jones watching his nephew