Physician Assisted Suicide Case Study

In the first case of Smith, he expects to inherit a large amount of money if any unexpected thing happens to his six-year-old cousin. One night, when his cousin is taking a bath, Smith slinks into the bathroom and drowns the child. After that, he deliberately makes some arrangements to look like an accident to hide his crime.
In the second case of Jones, he also expects to have a large inheritance if his six-year-old cousin dies. John secretly walks into the bathroom and plans to drown his cousin while he is taking a bath. However, John sees that his cousin accidently slips in the bath and his face falls down into the water. John stands by and watches the child drowning in the water.
The only difference between two cases is that Smith kills the child and Johns lets his cousin die. Even though people might say that letting die in itself is less bad than killing, it is hard to find rational reasons regarding Jones’s behavior is morally permissible. Thus, James Rachels concludes that both Smith and Jones conduct despicable behavior in terms of moral matters and also, killing and letting dies are bad in all aspects of …show more content…
The policy prohibits active euthanasia, but the statement begins to deny that no further treatment is related to the intentional termination of life. Rachels points out the mistake in the statement. He thinks that doctors are only worried about the patient will die soon, or the patient’s life will become a huge burden. Nonetheless, he shows the same viewpoint in these cases that significant difference between killing and letting die hardly exist in the case of euthanasia. No matter what humane reasons that a doctor decides to let a patient die, his decision would be morally reprehensible. Also, the decision would be given the same moral assessment like the doctor gives the patient a lethal injection by means of the humanitarian