Active and Passive Euthanasia by Rachels

Table of Contents

Introduction
Authors Position
Reconstruction of the Argument
Reaction to the Argument
Conclusion
Work Cited

Introduction

Euthanasia belongs to one of the most controversial issues discussed in modern society. Many philosophers, researchers, and scientists have explored the questions of letting patients die and conducting direct actions to ensure the death of incurably ill people. James Rachels who was a US philosopher also contributed to the discussion of active and passive euthanasia. In his article Active and Passive Euthanasia, Rachels has expressed himself on the conventional doctrine adopted among doctors. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the philosophers position and the argument in favor of the claim as well as to analyze them.

Authors Position

At the beginning of the work, Rachels dwells on the traditional views on euthanasia. The distinction between helping a person die actively or passively is regarded as one of the most essential issues for medical ethics. According to the conventional doctrine, in some cases, it is permissible for doctors to stop treatment and allow a patient to die (Rachels 78). However, performing direct operations that will result in the termination of the life of an ill person is considered to be inadmissible (Rachels 78). This doctrine is accepted by the majority of professionals and adopted by the American Medical Association (Rachels 78). Despite this fact, Rachels believes that healthcare workers need to change their opinion on the topic (Rachels 79). Thus, admitting that the theme is difficult and involves many additional issues, the philosopher states that active euthanasia should be regarded as admissible, not passive mercy-killing.

Reconstruction of the Argument

The author proves his claim by demonstrating the weakness of the opponents main argument. To do so, Rachels gives an extended example of a typical situation that is relevant for the issue analyzed (Rachels 79). A person is dying of incurable throat cancer and experiences pains that cannot be relieved through medicines anymore. This patient will certainly die within a few days even with the presence of the current treatment. However, the person and their relatives want to terminate suffering earlier because the pain is unbearable; thus, the doctor is asked to let the patient die. As per the conventional doctrine, the healthcare professional withholds treatment, with the main reason for this being mercy and the refusal to prolong sufferings needlessly (Rachels 79). Nevertheless, stopping the therapy suddenly might, on the contrary, result in the extension of the persons agony.

Based on the above information, if the decision to end the patients life is made, active mercy-killing is a better option than passive euthanasia. The latter variant often leads to more suffering and a slower death and thus, is opposite to the humane goal of euthanasia (Rachels 79). Moreover, Rachel cites doctors who confess that allowing patients to die is exhausting and morally difficult (Rachels 79). This is how the philosopher demonstrates the weakness of the conventional doctrine and proves his claim.

Reaction to the Argument

In my opinion, the argument described above might be seen as a strong one because it supports the authors position. Indeed, passive euthanasia proves to be a worse way to fulfill the noble objective of terminating the lives of incurably ill to stop their suffering in comparison to active mercy-killing. The main point of the cases that include euthanasia is the decision to end ones life. Once it is made, giving a patient an appropriate injection seems to be a more fair way of helping them to die than letting them continue suffering.

Conclusion

To sum up, James Rachels expressed himself against the conventional doctrine that suggests regarding active euthanasia as totally inadmissible. He argued that passive mercy killing which is permissible in some cases often does not correspond to its initial goal while active assistance in dying provides a quick termination of suffering. Besides, for doctors, letting patients pass away is morally hard. This argument seems to be strong for it supports the authors claim.