The Morality Of Euthanasia Analysis

According to James Rachels, in his essay “The Morality of Euthanasia,” the American Medical Association’s Conventional Doctrine in Euthanasia is false. The Conventional Doctrine states that there are certain situations in which letting someone die or passive euthanasia is morally permissible, but killing a patient or active euthanasia is not. For instance, in many circumstances a doctor can withhold treatment and will do nothing wrong if the patient were to die, but if the doctor were to provoke the death of the patient then it would be morally wrong. Rachels’ final goal is not to take a stand on the rightness or wrongness of euthanasia but instead show that if passive euthanasia is morally permissible then active euthanasia is also morally permissible. (define euthanasia)
Rachels takes the justification for “letting a patient die” as a way to reduce the patient’s suffering and turns it into one that proves that active euthanasia is not any worse than passive
But then again, he is just trying to challenge the distinction and he is successful at it. It makes me think why should anyone suffer a slow painful death? In the end both cause the death of someone. Active euthanasia would be much more “compassionate.” In my opinion, we see euthanasia as a brutal killing because we are more exposed to the terrible things shown by the media, but we are not as familiar with the characteristics of letting someone die. Thus, we always think killing is worst. I believe that active euthanasia should be a choice and it is not wrong. A terminally ill patient should be able to decide his fate to end his life or continue suffering. Of course, when the patient is not able to make decisions it should be the guardian’s right to do it. It is not easy to make such decision, but the option should be