Euthanasia Is Morally Permissible?

973 Words Nov 4th, 2015 4 Pages
Euthanasia means the painless killing of patients suffering from an incurable and painful diseases or in an irreversible coma, it is 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? Je has an affirmative stance and defends the idea and brings it one step forward to say that there is nor should there be any difference between active and passive euthanasia. 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 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. He gives us some arguments for this 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 with Down syndrome. This would create a difference in…
Open Document