Killing. Vs. Letting One Die: Is there really a difference? The controversy surrounding euthanasia has always been heated. Much of the debate revolves around the distinction between killing a person as opposed to letting one die, which then leads to the debate about active and passive euthanasia. In James Rachels article, Active and Passive Euthanasia, he makes the argument that there is no difference between killing and letting one die. It follows from this that there should be no distinction between active and passive euthanasia.
This being said he also makes the argument that perhaps passive euthanasia can even be seen as more morally inhumane than passive euthanasia. I argue that James Rachels arguments are conclusive and will outline the main points of his argument that lead me to this conclusion. As stated above, Rachels bases much of his argument of the premise that there is no difference between killing and letting one die, for both can be seen as equally morally reprehensible. He illustrates his point through the story of Smith and Jones. The story is that both Smith and Jones are to substantially gain financially if their nephew dies. Both men decide that they are going to kill their nephew.
Smith walks into the bathroom as his nephew is bathing and drowns him. Jones on the other hand walks into the bathroom just as his nephew hits his head and drowns. Jones did not actively kill his nephew he just sat around and watched him die (Rachels, 150).
The Essay on Right To Decide: To Live Or To Die
Who has the right to say whether a person lives or dies? The person has the right to decide. You are in control of your body and hold your life in your hands, right or wrong you have the option to end your life, and in extreme cases your family has the right to act on your behalf. There is no one who should be able to take this option away from you. Everyone has certain inalienable rights that are ...
Neither man behaved any better, both of their action (or lack there of) are equally morally reprehensible for their intentions were the same and the intentions are what is important and not the actual act of killing in itself (Rachels, 150).
If the act of killing in and of itself is morally wrong then how is it that we justify other forms of killing, such as killing during war or killing in self defense (Conference notes, Friday @ 11: 30)? Some may not see how this story is relevant to that of a doctor killing a patient, since the doctor has nothing to gain from it. The doctors are concerned with cases where the patient! s life is of no further use to him, and cases where the suffering is so painful that death would be the best solution.
However the point is the same: ! ^0 the bare difference between killing and letting die does not, in itself, make a moral difference! +/- (Rachels, 150).
If a doctor lets a patient die for humane reasons, he is in the same moral boat if he had given the patient a lethal injection (Rachels, 150).
From this he concludes that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia does not follow. He reasons that if there is no moral difference between the two then neither active nor passive euthanasia is better or worse (depending on your view).
He furthermore makes the argument that in some cases perhaps killing (active euthanasia) is the lesser of two evils because it is more humane in its methods. active euthanasia is when you actively end the life of a terminally ill patient by way of, for example, a lethal injection.
Passive euthanasia is when the doctor stops the treatment of the patient, which ultimately leads to the death of the patient. The American Medical Association believes that it is permissible to let one die however it is not permissible to actively end the life of a patient. The AMA believes that, ! ^0 mercy killing is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands! +/- (Rachels, 149).
The Term Paper on Active Euthanaisa
... active euthanasia, is not morally permissible. I consider these both to be actions without any moral difference. James Rachels puts the distinction between killing ... improving the well-being and autonomy of a patient. . In addition, the image of doctors as healers will remain intact and confidence ...
Rachels, nevertheless refutes this argument claiming that many times passive euthanasia is more inhumane than active because the patient is left suffering until they succumb (Rachels, 149-150).
That would also be contrary to that for which the medical profession stands for, because all doctors take the Hippocratic oath which asserts that all doctors will do whatever they can to relieve the suffering of their patients. The AMA denies that the cessation of treatment can be looked at as killing a patient, for they are not doing anything (Rachels, 150).
However non-action in itself is a form of action. He gives the example of insulting a person by calling them ugly, which is an active for of insulting someone, and then there is insulting someone by not shaking their hand, which is passively insulting them through non-action (Rachels, 151).
Therefor it can be concluded through James Rachels arguments that there is no moral distinction between killing and letting one die. They are both equally morally reprehensible. It is the intentions behind an action that make an act right or wrong.
In the case of Smith and Jones both of their intentions were to kill their nephew for financial gain. In the case of doctors they do not have anything to gain personally form ending a life of a patient, however what is important to note is that their intention were humane, they want to end the suffering of the patient. This is why Rachels makes the claim that perhaps active euthanasia is more humane because you are letting the person die without any further suffering. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of treatment, however the person is suffering as they die. Perhaps the legalization of active euthanasia should be reconsidered, for no logical reason has been given otherwise.
