PHL Midterm 2 Review

PHL Midterm 2 Review - PHL M idterm 2 Review Rachels on...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

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

Unformatted text preview: PHL M idterm 2 Review Rachels on Active and Passive Euthanasia Active and Passive Euthanasia • Active euthanasia involves merciful killing of an individual • Passive euthanasia involves removal of care so as to allow a individual to die • Both active and passive euthanasia result in the death of the patient • What then is the moral difference between active and passive euthanasia Conventional Doctrine • According to the American Medical Association: o Intentional termination of the life of one human being be another is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands o Letting one go when there’s irrefutable death is imminent (suggestion that active is bad and passive is good) Rachels’ Arguments • Rachels wishes to argue that there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia • There is moral difference between the consequences of euthanasia, but these differences favor active • Conventional doctrine is inconsistent • Rachels offers 4 different arguments Things to Consider • Rachels grants that it is possible to reject both • Doesn’t attempt to provide argument for euthanasia itself • Attempts to show that the particular position on euthanasia is inconsistent • This is not an argument for active euthanasia • This is an argument for active euthanasia given previous commitment to passive euthanasia Cases – Child • Child has down syndrome and obstruct intestine that require a form of minor surgery in order for the child to live • Child is allowed to die by withholding needed surgery • Over a span of several days, dehydration and infection will result in gradual death • Use of passive euthanasia rather than active means what could have been short and painless is instead prolonged First Argument • Active euthanasia allows patient to die without unnecessarily prolonging his suffering • Passive euthanasia will often cause patient to suffer more • Favor of passive euthanasia is thus favoring the infliction of greater suffering than necessary • Infliction is not consistent with the principles in support of passive euthanasia Arbitrariness • Passive euthanasia is possible only because the child is born with and obstructed intestine • What determines if the child lives or dies is whether the intestine is obstructed • What really matters is not that the child has an obstructed intestine, but instead that he has down syndrome • Passive euthanasia is only dependent on the obstructed intestine Second Argument • If the child’s life is worth preserving, it should be preserved regardless of whether or not the...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course PHL 304 taught by Professor Leon during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 8

PHL Midterm 2 Review - PHL M idterm 2 Review Rachels on...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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