James Rachels Arguments Of Euthanasia
Rachels and Brock
James Rachels’ thoughts on active and passive euthanasia come down to the idea that there is no moral difference between both active and passive euthanasia. That simply they are functionally equivalent. Rachels’ argument stems from the AMA’s stance on euthanasia. The AMA believes the intentional termination of one’s life is contrary to “that for which the medical profession stands.” However, it is wrong to prolong the needless suffering of patients who are dying. Therefore, treatment refusal is the right of a competent patient.
Rachels provides three arguments in light of active euthanasia being morally acceptable as passive euthanasia, as it would protect patients from unnecessary suffering. He does this first through explaining the humanitarianism that justifies both active and passive euthanasia when a patient prefers active mode. Rachels supports this first argument with the example of death being a very painful and time-consuming process; allowing this to occur goes against our obligation to compassion.
Rachels’ second argument is on the irrelevant grounds of which many life and death decisions are …show more content…
Many people want the option of active euthanasia, even though they may not need or seek it at any point in their life. This leads towards a larger group who would then benefit from having VAE as an option. Legalized VAE would provide reassurance to a large population. An example given is fire insurance. No one hopes to use fire insurance, but it is nice to have. Another good consequence of VAE is the alleviation of suffering since dying can be very painful physically. Finally VAE is simply more merciful than VPE in the case of suffering. Passive euthanasia can be drawn out and painful for the patient. Therefore the patient should be able to make their own decision as to how much pain they will endure (Brock,
James Rachels’ thoughts on active and passive euthanasia come down to the idea that there is no moral difference between both active and passive euthanasia. That simply they are functionally equivalent. Rachels’ argument stems from the AMA’s stance on euthanasia. The AMA believes the intentional termination of one’s life is contrary to “that for which the medical profession stands.” However, it is wrong to prolong the needless suffering of patients who are dying. Therefore, treatment refusal is the right of a competent patient.
Rachels provides three arguments in light of active euthanasia being morally acceptable as passive euthanasia, as it would protect patients from unnecessary suffering. He does this first through explaining the humanitarianism that justifies both active and passive euthanasia when a patient prefers active mode. Rachels supports this first argument with the example of death being a very painful and time-consuming process; allowing this to occur goes against our obligation to compassion.
Rachels’ second argument is on the irrelevant grounds of which many life and death decisions are …show more content…
Many people want the option of active euthanasia, even though they may not need or seek it at any point in their life. This leads towards a larger group who would then benefit from having VAE as an option. Legalized VAE would provide reassurance to a large population. An example given is fire insurance. No one hopes to use fire insurance, but it is nice to have. Another good consequence of VAE is the alleviation of suffering since dying can be very painful physically. Finally VAE is simply more merciful than VPE in the case of suffering. Passive euthanasia can be drawn out and painful for the patient. Therefore the patient should be able to make their own decision as to how much pain they will endure (Brock,