PHI 306 Final Study Guide

PHI 306 Final Study Guide - PHI 306 Final Study Guide 1....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. How does Rachels define active euthanasia? Passive Euthanasia? According to Rachels, active euthanasia is the intentional killing of a patient in order to prevent unnecessary suffering. Passive euthanasia is intentionally letting a patient die in order to prevent unnecessary suffering. Summarize Rachels’ main argument (1st article) in favor of active euthanasia. How does he use (1) the two cases of the Down’s syndrome babies, and (2) the example of the acts of Smith and Jones, to argue for the major premise in his main argument? If passive euthanasia is sometimes justifiable, then active euthanasia is sometimes justifiable (if one is, then the other is). 1.) If PE is sometimes morally permissible, then AE is sometimes morally permissible 2.) PE is sometimes morally permissible 3.) Therefore, AE is sometimes morally permissible He uses the example of the baby with Down’s syndrome to prove this. Sometimes, a baby who is born with Down’s syndrome can have congenital defects, such as an intestinal obstruction. “When there is an intestinal blockage, one can ‘let the baby die,’ but when there is no such defect there is 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. Jones/Smith example: Jones and Smith stand to gain money if anything should happen to their six year old cousin. Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child. Jones sneaks in to drown the child as well, but he slips, hits his head, and falls face down in the water, Jones just stands by and watches him die. Rachels says that when you refrain from doing something, it is still morally evaluatable. What is his interpretation of the AMA statement that he quotes? What does Rachels say about a doctor’s “doing nothing” as opposed to killing his patient, as far as moral evaluation is concerned? Rachels argues that according to the AMA doctrine, the matter of life and death is being decided on irrelevant grounds. 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. 2. How does Sullivan reply to Rachels? Specifically, with what premise of Rachels’ main argument does Sullivan agree? Sullivan agrees to Rachels’ conditional statement that, if passive euthanasia is justifiable,
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

PHI 306 Final Study Guide - PHI 306 Final Study Guide 1....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online