Active And Passive Euthanasia Analysis

James Rachels Active and Passive Euthanasia addresses one of the most controversial topics concerning human ethics in modern society: the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is essentially the use of lethal injection to end the life of a patient, while passive euthanasia is the withholding of medical treatment which similarly results in the patient’s death. Rachels provides a unique perspective on the traditional doctrine in medicine that prohibits the implementation of active euthanasia upon a patient. He indicates that there are in fact a variety of reasons and scenarios where active euthanasia is in fact the better and more moral option than the passive approach. The major criticism I found within Rachels article was in regards to his premise that there is no moral distinction between passive and active euthanasia as they are both equally condemnable acts of murder. While Rachels makes some valid and knowledgeable points, this paper will deconstruct this premise through scrutinizing her primary thought experiment of Smith and Jones.
Rachels bases his argument on the premise that the intent behind an action and the action itself are both separate entities and thus cannot be morally evaluated as a unit. Rachels articulates that since the end result is the same in both active and passive euthanasia, there is no moral distinction between ‘actively killing’ a patient and ‘letting a patient die.’ Thus, by his logic, if one believes that passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, they must also believe that active euthanasia is morally acceptable as they both result in the death of a suffering patient. In critiquing this, I find however that the matter of intent behind implementing passive or active e...

... middle of paper ...

... action would be on the same level as murdering a little girl as it results in the same thing. Consequently, if our lack of action is not placed at the same level as murders, then passive euthanasia cannot be placed there either. Ultimately, someone who ‘let’s one die’ does not necessarily possess the sole intention of causing death like ‘active killing’ but instead may not prevent another’s death due to ignorance, inaccessibility, or a desire to let nature do its job.
Conclusively, through examining the thought experiments of James Rachels, I have identified various weaknesses within his paper regarding the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. While my objections are by no means conclusive, they have illustrated that his belief that ‘letting someone die’ and ‘actively killing someone’ are morally indistinguishable, is to say the least, greatly flawed.