This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: nothing that can be done, for one must not kill it. Rachels says that this idea leads to such results as deciding life or death on irrelevant grounds. 3.) What is Rachels position on the AMA policy regarding active euthanasia quoted on the first page of his article? Rachels believes that the AMA policy regarding active euthanasia as wrong should be rejected. In order to argue this, he explains that the doctrine prohibits mercy killing because it is the intentional termination of a life. However, Rachels points out that cessation of treatment is also the intentional termination of a life. Therefore, the decision to let a patient die is subject to moral appraisal in the same way that the decision to kill him would be. Rachels claims that this is why there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, and the policy should be rejected from a moral standpoint....
View Full Document
- Fall '08