Critical Summary: Active and Passive Euthanasia (James Rachels)

Summary, Pages 2 (454 words)

Views

1221

James Rachels presents a compelling argument against the traditional medical doctrine that prohibits physicians from taking actions that would contribute to a patient's death. He believes that in certain situations, following this doctrine can actually result in more suffering for the patient. Rachels suggests that when continued medical support only serves to prolong suffering, doctors should have the option to discontinue treatment. In his view, if doctors make this decision with the intention of reducing suffering, then they should also have the option of active euthanasia.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Critical Summary: Active and Passive Euthanasia (James Rachels) ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Rachels highlights the inconsistency in allowing the withdrawal of medical support but not permitting active euthanasia. He argues that there is no moral distinction between passive and active euthanasia, as both involve intentional acts to end a patient's life. By allowing a patient to die through inaction, a doctor is essentially making a choice to end their life. In this sense, not taking action is still a form of action.

He provides an example where a doctor chooses not to treat a patient with a life-threatening illness that is known to be treatable.

By withholding treatment, Rachels argues that the doctor is essentially committing murder. This places doctors in a difficult position where they are seen as either prolonging suffering or actively ending a patient's life. According to Rachels, both passive and active euthanasia are morally equivalent, as they both involve intentionally ending a patient's life.

While I agree with Rachels that there is no moral distinction between passive and active euthanasia, I hold a different perspective on the ethical implications of these actions.

I believe that life is sacred and should be preserved, regardless of the suffering involved. Both forms of euthanasia, whether passive or active, are considered acts of murder and are therefore immoral in my view.

Immanuel Kant's perspective on the duty to continue living despite hardships aligns with my belief in the sanctity of life. Kant argues that individuals have a duty to persevere through challenges because they are ends in themselves. While it may seem more merciful to end one's life to escape suffering, Kant emphasizes the importance of upholding the value of life and the duty to preserve it.

Ultimately, I believe that we do not have the authority to choose when life should end, as we did not create life itself. Therefore, we should not have the right to take life away from others or ourselves. Instead, our responsibility lies in prolonging life and upholding its sanctity, even in the face of suffering.