by Jose Guzman

Created on: January 16, 2009

The Correspondence to Euthanasia: A Defense

Presentation of the Case and Paper's Aim

Passive and active euthanasia are medical procedures that are (for the purpose of this paper) known as the following: passive euthanasia occurs when a doctor does nothing to contribute to a patient's death ; active euthanasia occurs when a doctor intentionally takes the life of a patient (Rachels 1). In an article titled Passive and Active Euthanasia by James Rachels, he argues that passive and active euthanasia essentially posses no moral difference. In addition, he argues that in the following case active euthanasia should be permissible: "...a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request" (Rachels 1). Although I agree with James Rachels, J. Gay-Williams seems to reject the idea of active euthanasia, and claims that "passive euthanasia" is not actually euthanasia at all.

This paper will seek to establish a number of claims. First, I will attempt to examine J. Gay-Williams' claim in regard to "passive euthanasia." Second, I will argue that active euthanasia should be permissible using the case presented above. Subsequently, I will begin to examine Rachels' case in more depthI intend to show that there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia. The paper will follow with an objection to my position, one to the effect that there is actually a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.

In Regard to "Passive Euthanasia"

In an article titled The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia by J. Gay-Williams, he claims that "passive euthanasia" as mentioned by James Rachels, is not actually euthanasia at all. As needed for euthanasia to take place, he initially argues that neither the patient, nor the doctor, is actually committing any type of an intentional action to kill him or her; the patient is undergoing severe pain and will soon die, but not due to the patient's decision to die . Therefore, the patient is not committing an act of euthanasia. However, here is where it gets interesting. Williams mentions that it is a mistake to assume that the doctor is committing an act of euthanasia by withholding additional treatment (Gay-Williams

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>