PHIL 140 -Euthanasia

PHIL 140 -Euthanasia - A doctor does not do nothing in...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Active euthanasia = direct action to kill a patient Passive euthanasia = allowing a patient to die Criticisms of this doctrine: o A) Unnecessary suffering for patients who die slowly and painfully rather than quickly and painfulessly o B) Doctrine leads to moral decisions based on irrelevant considerations o C) Distinction between killing and letting die is of no moral significance Doctrine accepted: It is permissible to allow patient to die, but it is impermissible to kill the patient Situations: A baby is born with defects and sometimes, the parents and doctors would agree to let the infant die 1 st Argument: Euthanasia should be permissible 2 nd Argument: Conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death made on irrelevant grounds Is there a moral difference between killing and letting die?
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: A doctor does not do nothing in active euthanisia, he/she is actually doing letting die Review Questions: 1. According to Rachels, what is the distinction between active and passive euthanasia? There is no moral difference. 2. Why does Rachels think that being allowed to die is worse in some cases than a lethal injection? Because it causes more suffering, as a patient knows that he will die for certain in a set amount of days. (hope is lost) 3. What is Rachels second argument against the conventional doctrince? Decisions concerning life and death are made on irrelevant grounds. 4. According to Rachels, why isnt killing worse than letting die? Because they have the same motive behind it. Discussion Questions:...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online