James Rachels Views On Active Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide

In this text James Rachels makes the argument that both degrees of euthanasia are morally allowable and that the AMA policy that supports the doctrine is not sound. He establishes that the conventional doctrine is the belief that, in most cases, passive euthanasia is morally permitted but in all cases, active euthanasia is not allowed. There are four main arguments that help him come to this conclusion. The first two main arguments being that active euthanasia is a more humane alternative than passive euthanasia and how the doctrine allows physicians to end one’s life due to irrelevant reasons. As well as the last two arguments being that there is morally no difference between letting someone die and killing then, and the invalidity of the arguments defending the policy. Rachels begins his argument by defining active and passive euthanasia. He classifies active as an action specifically made to end a patient’s life. While referring to passive as the withholding or withdrawing medical treatment without taking any direct action. An example of active euthanasia would
No matter the treatment this patient will pass away within a few short days and due to the immense pain, the patient wishes to suffer no longer. Because of the conventional doctrine, the physician is allowed to withhold treatment which would engage them in passive euthanasia. However, Rachels believes that this action of passive euthanasia would only elongate the patients suffering since it would allow him to live longer. This is where Rachels argument comes into play. He argues that active euthanasia should be allowed in this circumstance since the overall intention is to end the patient’s suffering anyways. Rachels feels this way because active euthanasia, over passive euthanasia, would still allow the same outcome but would ultimately cause the patient less