Nikole Jordin Gonzales
Philosophy
12/5/11
Rachels- Active and Passive Euthanasia
James Rachels is an American philosopher from Georgia whos well known publication
Active and Passive Euthanasia argues that active euthanasia should be considered as a better
alternative to passive euthanasia in familiar types of situations where the patient will suffer more
if he or she is basically allowed to die, compared to how much he would suffer if the doctor
actively ended his life. Rachels calls to question the American Medical Associations doctrine
which states that intentional termination of the life of one human being by another is called
mercy killing and is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to
the policy of the American Medical Association. To further substantiate his argument he then
provides some strong cases. One case involving a situation with a throat cancer patient for which
he believes can be made against the AMAs doctrine. He asks to consider a familiar type of case
from a humanitarian perspective, suppose that a throat cancer patient is already destined to die
soon (within a couple of days) whether or not they are receiving their treatment regularly. Not
wanting to suffer through such an agonizing pain any longer they wish to cut their life short to a
fast, virtually painless death. Since the AMAs doctrine (accepted by most doctors) only allows
the doctor to simply stop treatment by the patients request so the patient can die faster, Rachels
reasons that simply stopping treatment still requires the patient to endure unbearable pain,
sometimes even taking longer to die. Although Rachels does take into consideration some
situations that cause people to oppose all cases regarding euthanasia, he feels that the established
doctrine leads to an evaluation concerning life and death made on extraneous grounds. The real
issue at hand that is frequently ignored is that people have concluded that killing is worse than
just letting someone die. This is a judgment that is extremely hard to accept and other
Jordin Nikole Gonzales
Philosophy
12/5/11
contributing factors such as the motive of the murderer or the doctors humanitarian intentions do
not make it any easier. In short, the explanation for his arguments view is:
1. If people (preferably the American Medical Association and doctors) reconsider
justification and gain the humanitarian desire to effectively cut the patients agony short
instead of allowing them to suffer extensively.
2. Then the issue of killing and letting die would be seen as one in the same if killing
(ending suffering) is not considered better.
3. And would euthanasia not be a matter of killing but a matter of morally permissible
death.
Now lets look at how someone can refute Rachels claims for active euthanasia. Rachels
asks doctors and people to reconsider active euthanasia and requests them to see it as a
humanitarian act. This theory is viewed through the eyes of utilitarianism, and claims that it not
only shows mercy to the person asking to die but also their family. Now Rachels first argument
is that if someone were to be dying from a very agonizingly painful terminal throat cancer and
they only had a matter of days to live, then he should be allowed to ask for someone to take his
life. If the doctor stops performing treatment on the patient and lets him die then this is the
exact same thing as actively killing him. This is in fact not at all the same matter, this is just
allowing nature to take its course on a terminally ill person. Now, I once heard someone say that
a part of living is dying, and a part of dying is suffering (which will come about either physically
or emotionally). Another one of Rachels arguments is that of Smith and Jones. Both men stand to
gain a large inheritance if either of their six year old cousins were to die. Now both men are
intending to kill the child to gain the boys inheritance. They are both willing to act in a morally
unfit way, a way of voracity and greed. Smith drowns his cousin while Jones willingly lets his
Jordin Nikole Gonzales
Philosophy
12/5/11
young cousin die. Even Rachels would understand their actions as ethically wrong. After reading
this argument I was dumbfounded that Rachels would even use this as a means to justify active
euthanasia. The boy is of a pure innocence and carries no illnesses or diseases, in his argument
we are not talking of euthanasia but of murder! Of a cold blooded slaying of a child. Now I still
dont understand how the childs life equates to that of a terminally ill patient, but Rachels makes
an attempt to match the two. When my grandmother was succumbing to Alzheimers, she told
my mother (before the disease had become too malicious on her) that when the disease got bad
and she lost her memory and rational thought, to allow her to die. My family was in agreement
that the best thing for her was to allow passive euthanasia on my grandmother. Now Rachels
claim that passive euthanasia is in some sense morally worse than active euthanasia by not
allowing a person mercy, but you are. My mothers family had the choice of allowing my
grandmother to die or keeping her alive in a vegetative state. They chose a merciful passing by
allowing nature and God to take her at the right time.