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.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- Death is not a concept that is well grasped or understood but we all know the cycle of life, we live and we die. We do not know how and we do not know when, our fate is laid out for us, we just learn to accept it because it is just how it goes. Some are lucky enough to live a healthy life with few to none complications and some find themselves fighting for their lives because of a terminating illness or severely injured from any type of accident. In an act of pain, torture, agony and knowing there is no hope for survival why can it not be you that has the upper hand in deciding when it is time to say goodbye.... [tags: Death, Euthanasia, Suicide, Illness]
1630 words (4.7 pages)
- I have argued that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, but many people are already okay with passive euthanasia because they believe the cause of death is different from active euthanasia so to some people passive euthanasia is the only morally acceptable one, and active euthanasia is the one that is morally impermissible. Both active and passive euthanasia are difficult things to accept because they both involve death and people are generally uncomfortable when it comes to that topic.... [tags: Euthanasia, Death, Morality, Suffering]
1012 words (2.9 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.... [tags: Euthanasia, Death, KILL, Homicide]
1202 words (3.4 pages)
- This means that doctors must never do anything to actively kill a patient; however the doctor does have the ability to use some discretion to ease and shorten suffering (i.e. whether to take extreme measures to prolong life). As has been noted, passive euthanasia is already a generally accepted medical practice and is permissible by Canadian law. A question to ask about passive euthanasia is, “Should we put time and effort in trying to prolong life of someone whose injuries or illnesses are so severe that they will be dead despite doctor’s best efforts?”.... [tags: Death, Euthanasia, Morality, Bystander effect]
2187 words (6.2 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 proc... [tags: Death, Euthanasia, Morality, KILL]
1283 words (3.7 pages)
- James Rachels believes that active and passive euthanasia are not morally different from each other (Timmons, 2007, p.346). He uses the cases of Smith and Jones to argue against those that believe active euthanasia, the act killing someone, is morally worse than passive euthanasia, the act of letting some one die (Timmons, 2007, p.347). In the case of Smith and Jones, both of the men will acquire a large inheritance if anything were to happen to their six-year-cousins (Timmons, 2007, p.347-348).... [tags: Death, Euthanasia, Morality, Homicide]
1097 words (3.1 pages)
- Euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing,” is defined as an “intentional ending of the patient’s life by a physician, usually by lethal injection” (Religion Facts). A difference must be made between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and between active vs. passive euthanasia. In a sense, euthanasia may be compared with homicide, as death is a direct result of the action of physician, while in doctor-assisted suicide the physician is only giving the patient the means to end his/her own life (could be compared with suicide).... [tags: Death, Euthanasia, Medical ethics, Medical law]
1539 words (4.4 pages)
- In 1973 the American Medical Association adopted a statement forbidding ‘mercy killing’ but allowing the cessation of treatment when requested by an incurable patient. In his essay “Active and Passive Euthanasia” James Rachels argues that active euthanasia should be avoided only to satisfy the law, not because of any perceived moral difference between active and passive. Rachels’ essay gives a convincing, logical argument to allow active euthanasia in certain cases. Rachels questions the doctrine that the AMA sets forth regarding intentional termination versus not using extraordinary means.... [tags: Conptemporary Moral Issues]
698 words (2 pages)
- I argue that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible because they both involve the ending of life due to extraordinary circumstances. If it is evident that a person is not going to get better, even with treatments, and the person wants to end their life, then that is what should be done. If a person wants to live and wants to go through with treatments for as long as possible then they should be allowed to live, but it is sometimes wrong to prolong life. We must think about the quality of life in these situations.... [tags: Death, Morality, Suffering, Suicide]
1324 words (3.8 pages)
- Rachel argues that ‘[T]he distinction between passive and active euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die.’ The law has drawn a clear distinction between the removal of life sustaining treatment that causes death and a request for assistance in ending life. Passive euthanasia is considered lawful whereas active euthanasia is unlawful as per the Suicide Act . In Bland a distinction was made between killing through an act and letting die through an omission.... [tags: medical ethics]
1465 words (4.2 pages)