Euthanasia Writing Assignment
According to the James Rachel theory, there exists no crucial importance between active and passive euthanasia (Rachels 2007). Supporting this argument, a high number of the population find the implementation of the argument that active euthanasia has less or reduced impact compared to passive euthanasia to be unrealistic. Having in mind that the simple English definition of euthanasia is to put an animal to death in a humane manner, the logic has no position for human existence. Thus, James Rachel’s essay Active and Passive Euthanasia, argument that legal distinction between killing and passively granting a patient the chance to decide on his or her death has no rational importance is true and deserves maximum support.
By addressing the critiques of his theory while rejecting the conventional doctrine on active and passive euthanasia, James Rachel presents the following responses and arguments. Based on the conventional doctrine, there is a significant difference between letting die and killing (Rachels 2007). The justification stands on the basis that allowing the patient’s death is to reduce harm, and the suffering the individual is going through. Reviewing the proposal and arguments of the conventional doctrine endorsed by the American Medical Group, active euthanasia is assumed to have the same weight as a physician-assisted death is never morally granted while letting die or passive euthanasia is morally permissible. However, most of the reported cases of active euthanasia tend to be more morally worse as compared to passive euthanasia. Society experiences more active euthanasia than passive euthanasia, thus contributing to the belief that killing and murder share similar names but the same meaning and are always worse (McLachlan 2018). Therefore, responding to the American Medical Association after endorsing the conventional doctrine, James Rachel argues that there exist many cases of passive euthanasia are WORSE than active killing. There is no reason behind assisting a patient to die, either way, the patient is dead, so why is it morally permissible to help them (Rachels 2007). The conventional doctrine regardless commands the physician to allow the patient to suffer before dying. Secondly, James used the bathtub analogy of Smith and Jones to argue that in most cases where it might seem right for the patient to die, the physician also has the right to embrace active euthanasia spirit (Rachels 2007). Despite this argument, James still does not defend the morality of passive euthanasia nor active euthanasia. Instead, his main goal is to address the difference challenge assumed by society.
Responding to the case study “Euthanasia in Spain: Death of terminally –ill woman reignites debate ahead of April election” Angel Hernandez helping his terminally ill wife to end her life cannot be described as active or passive euthanasia as Angel performed the act individually not as a professional physician. Further, the case motivates similar cases in society; thus, I believe that to embrace the constitutional right to life, a shift in our cultural attitudes towards euthanasia is essential. Also, supporting doctors to help suffering patients end their lives in the case of “Jack Kevorkian and the Right to Die/ Retro Report/ The New York Times” is morally wrong, and change is necessary. Therefore, active euthanasia and passive euthanasia have no rational importance.
References
McLachlan, H. V. (2018). The ethics of killing and letting die: active and passive euthanasia. Journal of medical ethics, 34(8), 636-638.
Rachels, J. (2007). Active and passive euthanasia. Bioethics: An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 64-69.