Title: The ethics of euthanasia | Australian Medical Student Journal
Headings: The ethics of euthanasia
The ethics of euthanasia
Nargus Ebrahimi
Introduction
Defining euthanasia
Legal situation of active voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide
Arguments for and against euthanasia
For
Against
Conclusion
Conflicts of interest
Correspondence
References

Content: 4] Advocates of euthanasia express the view that the fundamental moral values of society, compassion and mercy, require that no patient be allowed to suffer unbearably, and mercy killing should be permissible. [ 4]
The difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia
Supporters of euthanasia claim that active euthanasia is not morally worse than passive euthanasia – the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatments that result in a patient’s death. In line with this view, it is argued that active euthanasia should be permitted just as passive euthanasia is allowed. James Rachels [12] is a well-known proponent of euthanasia who advocates this view. He states that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die, as the intention is usually similar based on a utilitarian argument. He illustrates this argument by making use of two hypothetical scenarios. In the first scenario, Smith anticipates an inheritance should anything happen to his six-year-old cousin, and ventures to drown the child while he takes his bath. In a similar scenario, Jones stands to inherit a fortune should anything happen to his six-year-old cousin, and upon intending to drown his cousin, he witnesses his cousin drown on his own by accident and lets him die. Callahan [9] highlights the fact that Rachels uses a hypothetical case where both parties are morally culpable, which fails to support Rachels’ argument. Another of his arguments is that active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia as it is “a quick and painless” lethal injection whereas the latter can result in “a relatively slow and painful death.” [