According To James Rachel's Effective And Active Euthanasia

1283 Words6 Pages
According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348). He points out two…show more content…
357). He argues Bishop Sullivan’s essay on legalizing euthanasia; the slippery-slope: if a killing was allowed, it would make the world a bad place. According to Philippa Foot, she thinks that active euthanasia is morally right in some individual case (Luper and Brown, p. 358). Active euthanasia should be acceptable because elderly or ill people who are suffering and wants to put an end to their life. However, according to Rachel, he says that “we ought to enforce a rigorous rule against it.” (Luper and Brown, p. 358). He gives two different forms: logical and psychology version of the slippery slope argument. Logical interpretation: in Bishop Sullivan view of euthanasia, he is saying that if we accept to allow euthanasia on a person that is suffering, we might kill others for no reason. However, Rachel objects to this argument proving that rational grounds do not prove that active euthanasia is legally prohibited in every case (Luper and Brown, p. 359). For instance, an ill person and a man with a disease, the first case; the person does not want to die, whereas, the second case the diseased patient wants to end his life using euthanasia which is acceptable to end the agony. The Psychological interpretation does not prove why euthanasia should be illegal because of self- defense. He later states the American Law: the burden of proof; excuse and justification; the criminal…show more content…
Rational suicide is “a duty to die” (Luper and Brown, p.362). According to Battin, she is against the denial of euthanasia treatment of elderly because it causes earlier deaths and it’s not fair that the health care towards the infants and younger people have more advantages. The policy of justice and age rationing; no longer making contributions to elderly and healthcare should not be available for elderly (Luper and Brown, p.363). Battin points out Norman Daniels work; competing resources among young people and elderly, he uses Rawlsian theories; the veil of ignorance. The policy provides more care to infants and young people, and not elderly (Luper and Brown, p. 364). James Fries "Squaring the curve" shows that more elderly are surviving the old age while experiencing trauma. This can help make a policy that provides more benefits to elderly; maximizing the preservation of life. The direct-termination policy In her essay, she argues for the limited health care for elderly and not for infants and the younger people. I am not convinced with her arguments because nowadays there are healthcare resources for elderly like Medicare, and adults (twenties) are struggling for health care

    More about According To James Rachel's Effective And Active Euthanasia

      Open Document