Active and Passive Euthanasia

¶ … Active and Passive Euthanasia, by James Rachels. Specifically, it will explain his arguments that active euthanasia is morally permissible, and the extent to which his arguments illustrate Kantian and utilitarian considerations. ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EUTHANASIA Rachels is an advocate of physician-assisted suicide, or euthanasia, and he wants to convince the American Medical Association (AMA) to change their definition of euthanasia, allowing doctors to allow terminally ill patients with no hope of recovery to be euthanized.

His arguments for euthanasia are effective and compelling, and though directed at physicians, they are of interest to anyone thinking about euthanasia for themselves or a loved one. Rachels discusses the differences between "killing and letting die" (Rachels 561), and discusses specific cases where allowing the patient to simply die without further treatment could actually prolong their life and their suffering.

"Part of my point is that the process of the 'allowed to die' can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless" (Rachels 562). In fact, his arguments seem so logical; it is difficult to understand why euthanasia is not already used in terminal and the worst cases. Passive euthanasia (letting someone die) is a relatively common occurrence in the United States today.

Families tell doctors their loved one does not want to be kept on life support, or does not want to suffer endlessly and doctors remove all treatment. Yet, the same doctor cannot inject the patient with a lethal injection to end their misery, that would be "killing," and it is against the morals of many, and against AMA rules. Morally, Rachels' arguments are part legality and part philosophy. The Kantian philosophy of benevolence certainly seems to apply here to Rachels' discussion.

"Kant's contention that the only good thing is a good will, which is what the New Testament means by love, goes necessarily with his second maxim. Whatever is 'benevolent' is right; whatever is 'malevolent' is wrong" (Fletcher 14). If active euthanasia is benevolent, or done with compassion and love, then passive euthanasia is malevolent, and wrong. If done for the wrong reasons of course, such as personal gain, any euthanasia is wrong, but that is not Rachels' argument here, it is whether active euthanasia should be recognized and applied.

Similarly, the utilitarian principle of the "greatest good" also applies here. "The Christian love ethic, searching seriously for a social policy, forms a coalition with the utilitarian principle of the 'greatest good of the greatest number.' Of course it reshapes it into the 'most love for the most neighbors'" Fletcher 19). The greatest good applied here ultimately comes down to passive euthanasia as the greatest good for the greatest number of suffering, terminal patients.

If a doctor must justify his or the family's decision to end the life of a patient, the principle of the "greatest good" not only applies to the suffering of the patient, but the suffering of the family as they watch their loved one die a prolonged and agonized death. In conclusion, euthanasia is a controversial and emotional issue. Rachels treats it as a moral issue that.