Distinction Between Killing And Letting To Die

In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of putting an end to a patient’s life for the purpose of ending the patients suffering. But can it ever be right to kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering? To kill patients, even with the intent to ease suffering, is considered homicide. Over the past years euthanasia has been defeated and become illegal in every country besides Netherland and Belgium. I am afraid that if euthanasia could have been legalised in those two countries, it’s a matter of time; the whole world would approval and soon follows the Dutch’s example of ‘good and easy death.’ Once legalised, euthanasia will become a means of health care containment, will become involuntary and would not only apply for the terminally ill,

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

Active and passive euthanasia has been a controversial topic for many decades. Medicine has become so advanced, even the most ill patients can be kept alive by artificial means. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action taken to end a person’s life, such as lethal dose of medication (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2014). Passive euthanasia is allowing a person to die by not intervening or stopping a treatment that is keeping them alive (Garrard, 2014). There are three main arguments within this issue; Firstly, in the healthcare setting, it is morally accepted to allow a patient to die but purposely killing a patient is not (Garrard, 2014). Secondly, some people believe there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia.

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

In the “Catholic Teaching on Euthanasia and Care of the Dying” doctument it states that as a new medical student have finished they’re course of learning in the department of medicine and caring for patients, they must take the Hippocratic Oath. In this oath it incorpurates that as the medical students graduate into becoming a staffed doctors or nurse that will do anything to save a patient’s life before exuding any other options on to them. A particular pharse that has stood out in the translated oath is “firstly do no harm” meaning that as a doctor you do everything in you power to save lives and never intencially end them. ”Doctors are trained to promote life… the deliberate act of killing a patient is unethical”. In another document

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

In J. Gay-Williams’ piece “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”, he begins by asserting that euthanasia is gaining popularity within our society, then defines euthanasia, and finally offers retributions as to why euthanasia is neither morally nor practically right. According to Gay-Williams, “euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person” (Gay-Williams 1979, 278). Based off aspects of his definition, Gay-Williams formats his three main arguments against active euthanasia which stem from nature, self-interest, and practical effects. Out of the three proposed arguments, the argument from nature stands out personally, as the least sound. Briefly stated, this argument is not sound because it fails to offer distinction

In this essay, we are going to analyze the main ideas included in “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels to provide a response to the following question: Does James Rachels in “The Morality of Euthanasia” successfully argue that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable?

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.

This essay will aim to focus on the arguments that author, James Rachel’s presents in his article, Active and Passive Euthanasia,” In his article Rachel’s argues that both passive and active euthanasia are morally permissible and the doctors that is supported by the American Medical Association(AMA) is believed to be unsound. In this paper I will offer a thorough analysis of Rachel’s essay then so offer a critique in opposition of his arguments. In conclusion I will refute these oppositions claims by defending Rachel’s argument, and showing why I believe his claims that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, to be effective.

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and