Arguments Against Active Euthanasia

Many people debate whether the act of Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide is an at of killing or caring. Euthanasia occurs when a patient cannot endure the pain and suffering anymore or if they are terminally ill. If making the decision to perform Euthanasia is agreed upon it consists of directly giving the lethal medication to the patient. The philosopher, James Rachels believed Active Euthanasia under certain circumstances was morally acceptable. I agree with James Rachels for many reasons and also believe Kantian beliefs come into play when considering Euthanasia. Rachels argues that active Euthanasia is only sometimes permissible. As stated in the book the Ethical Life “Rachel claims that any action that promotes the best interests of all concerned, and that violates no rights, is morally acceptable. Since, he claims, active euthanasia sometimes satisfies this description, it is sometimes morally acceptable.” (pg. 245) Rachels believes in the overall happiness for the patient if it does not interfere with their rights. He agrees that if someone was suffering or terminally ill they should have the option to end their life. It is a compassionate end result to relieve suffering patients of their pain. It would be in the best interest of the patient. It would also benefit his/her family and friends- Doing what is in everyone’s best interests which would produce the overall best happiness. The following agreement is based off of Euthanasia found in “The Ethical Life” book.

If an action promotes the best interest of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights, then that action is morally acceptable.
2. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s