Active Euthanasia Argument Analysis

It is regularly contended that doctors are advocated in enabling their patients to die by pulling back or withholding treatment, yet are not justified in executing them. This distinction in attitude toward active and passive euthanasia appears to be acknowledged by medical professionals. Adversaries of active euthanasia depend on the instinctive distinction that murdering somebody is ethically worse than giving them a chance to pass on. It is contended that a doctor who kills a patient straightforwardly causes the death, yet a specialist who pulls back or withholds treatment simply permits their death. Rather than this view, nonetheless, many contend that there isn't any genuine noteworthy good distinction between the two activities. Picking not to act is itself an activity, and we are all similarly in charge of this. and we are equally responsible for this. Indeed, as there is no

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia” Rachels demonstrates the similarities between passive and active euthanasia. He claims that if one is permissible, than the other must also be accessible to a patient who prefers that particular fate. Rachels spends the majority of the article arguing against the recommendations of the AMA. The AMA proposes that active euthanasia contradicts what the medical profession stands for. The AMA thinks that ending a person’s life is ethically wrong, yet believes that a competent patient has a right to choose passive euthanasia, meaning to refuse treatment in this case. Rachels makes four claims arguing against that AMA statement.

Morality, in its basic sense, can easily be interpreted as a view or a response that is influenced by a culture. Given its conditioned thoughts, a single person may not take a stance where they have the ultimate discretion of what deems the distinction of moral things, and those that are not. Instead of attempting to grasp this larger picture, a second thought to ponder is whether or not there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia. Breaking this argument down a bit more, our ultimate goal is to prove that the acts of killing and letting die are indistinguishable. Philosophers such as Phillipa Foot, believes that there is a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die, however the case she presents is not as easy to influence as is James Rachels’ argument in “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” In opposition to Foot, Rachels creates the argument that there is not a morally relevant distinction between the acts of killing and letting die. Although Rachels presents a more influential case, he also suggest that we should be inclined to change the laws and medical policy around euthanasia. Given this implied suggestion, we must ignore his suggestion, because it is not necessarily inclusive to his conclusion.

By definition, “Euthanasia” refers to the act of taking an individual’s life deliberately to terminate their pain and suffering. It entails killing persons who are struggling with ailments and suffering from severe pain as a result of chronic diseases such as cancer and physical injuries. It also encourages someone to intentionally take his or her life and commit suicide. Two philosophers named James Rachels and J. Gay-Williams hold two very opposing arguments on euthanasia. James Rachels was born on May 30, 1941 in Columbus, Georgia and died on September 5, 2003 in Birmingham, Alabama from cancer. J. Gay-Williams is a pseudonym for Ronald Munson.

Having read and analyzed this article in my opinion Mr. James Rachels successfully argues that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable. First of all and to better understand the position of the author we need to understand the principal concepts involved in this article. We need to define euthanasia and classify the different types of euthanasia. Euthanasia is considered as a good death, it is the act or omission that accelerates the death of a patient sick with no cure, with or without their approval (as in the case of people in a coma), with the intention of stopping suffering and pain. Euthanasia is associated with the end of life to stop or avoid suffering.

In James Rachel’s article Active and Passive Euthanasia, James provides the argument that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia because in the end, either through inaction or action, it both results in death and there are no moral differences in ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. Rachel provides several different arguments to support his case including a patient dying of terminal cancer, and two uncles and the death of their nephews.

Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death someone who is suffering from an incurable disease. The word ‘euthanasia’ has Greek roots, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia, the deliberate hastening of a person 's death, was supported by Socrates and Plato in ancient Greece and Rome. The Hemlock Society, a national right-to-die organization, likely took its name from the practice of using hemlock “as a means of hastening death” (S. Biswas). Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives through euthanasia? Is it morally or ethically wrong to allow doctors to assist patients in killing themselves? What are the limits? Who sets the rules? Where has the value placed on human life gone? Euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong and

A source of evidence that supports that James Rachels is an act utilitarian consequentialist are his comments about active and passive euthanasia. Though he acknowledges that legally there are differences between the two, morally there are no different because “instance death is no greater an evil than the patient's continued existence.” Both active and passive euthanasia result in death, but a patient desiring to end his life would be happier to end his life quickly, rather than to suffer for a long, extended period fighting an incurable disease.

James Rachel, a philosophy professor at the university of Alabama, wrote a paper called "Active and Passive Euthanasia" where he argues against the distinction between killing in letting die. He says that the distinction is made on morally irrelevant grounds. He says that the distinction between passive and active euthanasia should not be based on whether or not wanted more morally permissible then the other. To prove his point Rachel uses three dif-ferent examples, which included different circumstance where euthanasia is involved. He looks at each example and argues why active euthanasia would be the same or even better then passive euthanasia in the situation.

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels argues that, morally, active and passive euthanasia are the same. Rachels’ strongest argument for this claim is that killing is not worse then letting one die. Since active euthanasia is killing and passive euthanasia is letting one die, morally active and passive euthanasia are the same (Rachels, 1997). I intend to argue that this argument fails because factors such as intent and cause of death play a role in passive and active euthanasia and when these factors are present it can be said that active and passive euthanasia are not the same and in fact active euthanasia is morally worse then passive euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the process of purposely ending a life of an individual in order to ease the pain and suffering (Healey, 2013, p. 1). There are three different types of euthanasia including voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is performed with a patient’s formal consent. Involuntary is preformed without a patient’s consent. Non-voluntary is preformed when a patient is unable to give consent. Voluntary euthanasia can be either active or passive. It is described that active euthanasia is known as letting a patient die and passive euthanasia is know as killing a patient. Voluntary active euthanasia is always morally impermissible. The debate is that there is no difference in the morality of discontinuing life-sustaining

In his article published in 1975, James Rachels seeks to pose an unsound difference between passive and active euthanasia, and explains a strong case as to how these two are essentially the same thing when it comes to committing murder. One can argue both cases: according to the American Medical Association “The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another- mercy killing- Is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association” to which Rachels makes several strong arguments against this principle throughout his article. First, he explains to cases that seem very similar with one exception each: The first case is about Smith, who is seeking personal

Misdiagnosis is one of the largest factors as to why voluntary euthanasia should not be legalized. How much do you actually trust medical accuracy? Being misdiagnosed is one of the greatest fears one can have when battling a terminal illness, and is more common than one may think. Researchers at John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore reviewed tissue samples from 6,000 cancer patients nationwide. It showed that one out of 71 cases turned out misdiagnosed where the biopsy labeled cancer when it wasn’t. (CNN). Erica Riel testified against physician-assisted suicide at the public hearing on January 29, 2013, before two Senate committees. Erica had been diagnosed with a terminal illness three times by Vermont doctors, only to learn later that that

     The indirect killing of a person, referred to as “passive euthanasia”, is thought to be the lesser of the two evils. Despite the fact that it is more legal than “active euthanasia” it is still the termination of a human life. Through the removal of life extending treatments, the physicians are still causing the patients death. Many life-sustaining treatments and examinations may actually cause the individual more pain and suffering, without a worthy return. A good medical example of this, are burn victims in which their survival is improbable, sometimes debridement treatments are used, which can provide the patient no gain what so ever and are extremely painful. When dealing with patients who will die with or without treatment, most people consider euthanasia the most appealing procedure.

The conventional doctrine endorsed by the American Medical Association states that passive euthanasia (letting die) is morally permissible. However, active euthanasia (assisting patients die) is never morally permissible because it’s like killing the patient instead of letting the patient die naturally. Active euthanasia is taking a direct action to kill a patient and on the other hand, passive euthanasia is withholding treatments to let the patient die (letting die). Rachels (1975) disagrees with the American Medical Association because he supports active euthanasia contrary to the position of this body. According to Rachels, active euthanasia reduces the pain of the patients who would otherwise die even without the injection. In other words, there are no significant differences between letting a person die and killing a person, who will still perish in the end. Rachels refutes the claim of the American Medical Association that does not support intentional termination of the life of the patient or what is referred to as mercy killing. In her view, doctors only uphold their legal mandate by not engaging in the mercy killing and ignoring their moral duty to ensure the patient die without pain. The doctors only seek to avoid legal responsibility by letting the patient die instead of killing the patient. Alternatively, passive euthanasia allows the patient to die naturally while the active one requires the doctor to take action to terminate the life of the patient. As such, by