The Morality Of Euthanasia And Euthanasia

1350 Words6 Pages
The morality of euthanasia continues to be a controversial topic. Its subject matter, death, is shrouded in emotional feelings that often obscure the logical appraisal of the subject. For opponents of euthanasia, passive and active euthanasia are seen as distinct and subject to different morality rulings. According to Vaughn “Active euthanasia is said to involve performing an action that directly causes someone to die… Passive euthanasia is allowing someone to die by not doing something that would prolong life” (595). In other words, active euthanasia is seen as killing someone while passive euthanasia is seen as simply letting him or her die. This distinction, killing versus letting die, is what is said to constitute the immorality of active euthanasia. It is my belief, however, that there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia and both should be considered moral. One of the major proponents of the lack of distinction between passive and active euthanasia is James Rachels. Rachels argues that “the bare difference between killing and letting die does not, in itself, make a moral difference” (Vaughn 651). I agree that because the action is different does not necessarily mean that the morality is different. Both of them are the same in that they are the intentionally killing someone. Letting a person die is often seen as a moral high ground because there is no action taken to bring about the death. However, in taking a person off of life support or
Get Access