Euthanasia Vs. Passive Euthanasia

1202 Words5 Pages
There are many different stances one can take when considering active euthanasia versus passive euthanasia. Perhaps one may believe killing someone is far worse than letting someone die, or that there is no difference between killing and letting die. Rachels and Nesbit have different stances on killing versus letting die, both using the nasty cousins argument as an example. Rachels tries to show that there is no difference between killing and letting die and Nesbitt tries to show that killing is worse than letting die. Though Rachels and Nesbitt have well thought through views and examples, perhaps there is not just one side a reader can take, as it seems Rachels and Nesbitt have tried to make their readers believe. Perhaps both views are okay to agree with, depending on the situation. Kuhse explains that maybe active euthanasia is better in one situation, but not in another, and that it is okay to agree with active euthanasia in certain instances, as a form of “mercy killing”. I believe that active euthanasia can be a better way to end suffering, in certain instances, rather than making that person suffer for an extended amount of time for no reason. When reading Rachels’ nasty cousin argument, where Smith kills his cousin and Jones just lets his cousin die, Rachels argues that they are both in the wrong, morally speaking, and many would agree with this conclusion that Rachels comes to. Rachels claims that because there is no difference between Smith killing his cousin and Jones just watching his cousin die, then there is no real difference between killing someone and letting someone die. Rachels goes as far as to say that this applies to all situations, not just the Smith and Jones scenario: They [the doctors] do not involve ... ... middle of paper ... ...thanasia, and vice versa. Active euthanasia should not be ruled out as a form of murder, but rather an option to end the suffering and pain of another human being. Though Rachels agrees with active euthanasia, it should not be considered the same as passive euthanasia, not in every situation as Rachels suggests. Nesbitt considers death as the worst thing that could happen to a person, and does not consider the option of mercy killing. Nesbitt only re- creates the nasty cousins argument in order to suggest that killers are worse than people who let die. Kuhse believes that the world would be better off with people who have compassion and a willingness to act rather than having incapacitated people who do nothing. Death is not always an evil; mercy killing, or active euthanasia, can end the struggle that many people go through with a terminal illness, and so much more.

More about Euthanasia Vs. Passive Euthanasia

Open Document