"Active and Passive Euthanasia
Section: Philosophy 1318
Article: “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels
Author’s Thesis: There is no principal difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.
Argument for Rachel’s Thesis: Active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. Intentions and actions are two separate ideas which cannot be compared. He also explains how inaction is still an action because there is a consequence. When performing euthanasia, no matter the intentions, someone still dies. There is no moral distinction between letting die and killing someone because the action’s result is the same. If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa.
My Thesis: James Rachels’ argument in the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” challenges the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia, stating that there is no important moral difference between the two. While he is correct in saying that it is wrong to prolong a dying patient’s suffering needlessly, his idea that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is not crucial for medical ethics is wrong. The reason it is unmistakably incorrect for active euthanasia to be thought of as no different from passive euthanasia is that there is an inherent moral distinction between killing and letting die.
Assumptions to Criticize:
- The conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death made on irrelevant grounds.
Killing someone is not worse than letting someone die.
“It is not exactly correct to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he does one thing...he lets the patient die.”
Intro: James Rachels’ argument in the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” challenges the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia, stating that there is no important moral difference between the two. While he is correct in saying that it is wrong to prolong a
Article: “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels
Author’s Thesis: There is no principal difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.
Argument for Rachel’s Thesis: Active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. Intentions and actions are two separate ideas which cannot be compared. He also explains how inaction is still an action because there is a consequence. When performing euthanasia, no matter the intentions, someone still dies. There is no moral distinction between letting die and killing someone because the action’s result is the same. If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa.
My Thesis: James Rachels’ argument in the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” challenges the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia, stating that there is no important moral difference between the two. While he is correct in saying that it is wrong to prolong a dying patient’s suffering needlessly, his idea that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is not crucial for medical ethics is wrong. The reason it is unmistakably incorrect for active euthanasia to be thought of as no different from passive euthanasia is that there is an inherent moral distinction between killing and letting die.
Assumptions to Criticize:
- The conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death made on irrelevant grounds.
Killing someone is not worse than letting someone die.
“It is not exactly correct to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he does one thing...he lets the patient die.”
Intro: James Rachels’ argument in the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” challenges the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia, stating that there is no important moral difference between the two. While he is correct in saying that it is wrong to prolong a