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…show more content… This would create a difference in choice on whether to save this child or just let it die in a slow, morally exhausting, and painful way.
In consequence now parents have to choose whether or not to operate and it constitutes in a sense, as passive euthanasia since the child dies from natural reasons. The child would be left to succumb to dehydration and infection, as the author puts it. There seems to be an exception on the difference of value in the death of the child with Downs and the other baby. The author as well as I sees the reason why some people might decide to operate or not. There seems to be multiple reasons for the decision yet none to be added to the topic of euthanasia. The only question we need to ask ourselves is the comfortableness we feel with having a baby dehydrate and wither away than receive an injection that will be quick and painless. Though, now is not the time to express my cynical views on the world; or to explore the value of lives between healthy and handicapped it is a question that must be considered. This story is meant to not only show the difference between scenarios in health but also to show that the doctrine leads to ‘decisions concerning life and death’ (Rachel47). In addition to act as an introduction to a new perspective that we seldom take into account and brings light into one of the objections presented.
The objection states that the professional role of saving lives makes passive euthanasia off limits to health