Euthanasia Is Morally Permissible?

1389 Words Nov 4th, 2015 6 Pages
Euthanasia means,’ the painless killing of patients suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, also known as “assisted suicide” or ‘mercy killing’’. James Rachel asks a very interesting question to the reader. He asks if active euthanasia is morally permissible. Rachel creates a distinction between active and passive euthanasia for the reader. Furthermore he not only defends the idea but he brings it one step forward to say that there is nor should there be any difference them. Rachel creates a distinction between active and passive euthanasia for the reader. Active is the act of death at the purposeful hand of the doctor by lethal injection or by any other means. Passive euthanasia involves letting the party die by natural reasons. This option might be withholding antibiotics or by not performing some minor surgery to fix a problem that if left untreated might cause death; even if this includes an immense amount of suffering. The author proposes that active euthanasia just as passive euthanasia should be morally permissible.

To expand on this he gives us some arguments. The main one being that passive euthanasia can produce more suffering than active euthanasia. He backs this reasoning up with a story circled around the death and suffering infants with a bowel obstruction. Suppose a couple of babies were born on the same day, at the same time, with the same bowel obstruction. There’s just one crucial difference between them, one was born…
Open Document