Active and Passive Euthanasia

1136 Words5 Pages
Despite the different views that comparatively analyze the morality and legal status of passive and active euthanasia, the end result of both medical choices is death. James Racheals explains the morality of each medical procedure in his argument; overall persuading medical doctors to reconsider the moral dependency of active euthanasia and to permit the use of active euthanasia on terms of a a more ethical and humane way of assisted death. Comparatively, an individual suffering from immense pain from a terminal illness, according to Racheals, should proceed medically with the best decision to end or reduce their suffering as provided by their medical doctor. I agree with Racheal’s argument that claims active euthanasia is a more ethical and morally acceptable action to end a suffering individual’s life than to inhumanely let them die in pain and suffering.
The morality of active euthanasia has been of deliberation for some time in the medical field and is highly debatable even today in comparing the overall ethics of such medical personnel actively assisting in death of a patient, but according to Racheals, should not be put above the reasoning as to prevent pain and suffering. Racheals helps to paint a literal scenario of a case where active euthanasia would be more preferable in the last days of a terminally ill patient, “…a patient who is dying of an incurable cancer of the throat and is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated, He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued…so he asks the doctor to end it…(47)”. This fact alone should immediately provide adequate evidence to any medical doctor that a patient, such as this, who is obviously in such pain and suffering...

... middle of paper ...

...relative to medical doctor’s usage of passive euthanasia over active euthanasia. Although in medicine, a doctor is responsible for caring for and reducing the suffering of their patients, passive euthanasia prolongs suffering and shoul be viewed as more inhumane as active euthanasia in some cases. Both are the deliberate killing of a human being and should be viewed as morally equivalent. Active euthanasia is acting upon the humanitarian impulse to reduce suffering whereas passive euthanasia seemingly guards the doctor of moral accountability and should not be justified as right as the patient suffers more through passive euthanasia rather than active euthanasia. Racheals is correct in his argument and presents to his audience significant evidence in support of active euthanasia as it should be preferred over passive euthanasia in cases of terminally ill patients.
Open Document