Rachels active and passive euthanasia summary. James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia Flashcards 2022-10-30
Rachels active and passive euthanasia summary Rating:
4,3/10
1153
reviews
In "Active and Passive Euthanasia," philosopher James Rachels argues that there is no moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to the direct and intentional act of ending a person's life, such as administering a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, refers to the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a person, allowing them to die naturally.
Rachels argues that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is based on a distinction between doing and allowing, but this distinction is flawed. He cites the example of a doctor who intentionally gives a patient a painkiller that has the side effect of hastening their death. This is considered passive euthanasia because the doctor is not directly causing the patient's death, but rather allowing it to happen by withholding treatment. However, Rachels argues that the doctor is still causing the patient's death by giving them the painkiller, and therefore it is not truly passive.
Rachels also argues that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is arbitrary, as it depends on the means by which death is brought about rather than the moral status of the act itself. For example, if a doctor directly administers a lethal injection to a patient, it is considered active euthanasia, but if the patient takes the lethal injection themselves, it is considered suicide. However, Rachels contends that the moral status of the act should not depend on who performs the act or how it is carried out, but rather on the moral principles involved.
Rachels concludes that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is a moral illusion and that the moral status of an act should be judged based on its consequences, rather than the means by which it is carried out. He suggests that the moral principles involved in active and passive euthanasia are the same, and that both forms of euthanasia should be evaluated on the basis of whether they respect the autonomy and dignity of the person in question.
Overall, Rachels' argument challenges traditional ethical views on euthanasia and suggests that the moral status of an act should be judged based on its consequences, rather than the means by which it is carried out. His argument has been widely debated and has had a significant impact on the ethical discourse surrounding end-of-life care.
Chapter Summary
The decision to let a patient die is subject to moral appraisal in the same way that a decision to kill him would be subject to moral appraisal: it may be assessed as wise or unwise, compassionate or sadistic, right of wrong. The doctor who gives the patient with cancer a lethal injection has himself caused his patient's death; whereas if he merely ceases treatment, the cancer is the cause of the death. In active euthanasia, however, the doctor does something to bring about the patient's death: he kills him. . This is done by ignoring the consent of the patient, and judging the act from the perspective of the physician involved in aiding the patient.
Rachels 'An Analysis Of Active And Passive Euthanasia'
Jay Williams, who is a Natural Law theorist, argues that euthanasia is not permissible because it is intentional killing, and goes against the natural law because it violates preserving life. Mercy comes in many forms and is rarely frowned upon. Jones stands by and watched as the child drowns, but is willing to push his head back under if needed. The issue is whether the DS baby should live. Jones sneaks into the bathroom, planning to drown the child, only just as he enters, the child slips, hits his head and falls face down in the water. The natural right to life is not something that should be taken lightly, especially when the challenge of living seems too much to overcome.
Active and Passive Euthanasia by James childhealthpolicy.vumc.org
The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. In AE the physician does something to kill the patient. We can test this principle with a thought experiment comparing Smith, who kills a child, with Jones, who merely allows a child to die in otherwise identical circumstances. P1: If D, then L. Doctors are not concerned with personal gain or the intentional murder of an individual, they only wish to apply the correct procedure if that ensures the patient has no further use for his or her life. I am not willing to agree to that point.
Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Euthanasia is a very serious ethical dilemma faced in modern health care. If, according to Rachel, they choose that option on the basis of reducing suffering then they can do better with active euthanasia. I would like to argue that despite the many differences between active and passive euthanasia, they are morally equivalent. An example of Passive euthanasia is allowing a person to die by starving or not giving treatment needed to keep the patient alive. Some believe that one is dead when the brain is dead or in a comatose state.
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. For Rachels both active and passive euthanasia are immoral practices and also states that approving one and not the other has no sense, because they are in the same level. Medical reasons doctors can take out tubes, respirator, etc. This situation proves that although there may not be a concrete distinction between killing and letting die, there is always a conscious decision made that evaluates the morality of the situation. Since killing another person is inherently wrong , Euthanasia is thus immoral.
James Rachel has written a very poignant supposition on active and passive euthanasia. It can be either active or passive. Conversely, an action or social policy is morally wrong if it serves to decrease happiness or to increase misery. However, according to Rachel, both are equally reprehensible. But the blockage is irrelevant. The doctor does nothing, and the patient dies of whatever ills already afflict him. He returns for his wedding.
Summary of James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”
Similarly, whether you kill or let die for a good motive—say to relieve suffering—the act is right or wrong independent of how you brought death about. An adult human has had more experiences and values more than a fetus the value assigned to the fetus come from other people. This is where the mistake conies in, for what is the cessation of treatment, in these circumstances, if it is not "the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another? Involuntary euthanasia is when the decision is made by someone else, such as a family member or doctor. According to the conventional doctrine, in some cases, it is permissible for doctors to stop treatment and allow a patient to die Rachels 78. If and only if certain requirements are met by certain parties can the process of voluntary active euthanasia be completed. In "Voluntary Active Euthanasia", Brock analyzes the arguments for and against the legalization of active euthanasia.
The idea being that it can be just voluntary as long as the person is given their… Why Do We Have The Right To Die If people have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, then they should also have the right to end their own life. This story serves to describe the excruciating and incessant pain that many of the terminally ill face. Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. There are different types of euthanasia, including voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Counter-argument — In PE the physician does nothing and the disease kills the patient. When it comes to good will we are to recognize what our duty is in life, we are to complete that duty, and we must be willing to do what is right no matter the situation. The distinction between AE and PE make this situation absurd—it leads to us thinking IB was important.
