Title: 
Headings: Active and Passive Euthanasia

Content: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active
 
and
 
Passive
 
Euthanasia
 
by
 
James
 
Rachels
 
(1975)
 
Abstract
 
The
  
traditional
  
distinction
  
between
  
active
  
and
  
passive
 
euthanasia
  
requires
  
critical
  
analysis. The
  
conventional
  
doctrine
  
is
 
that
 
there
 
is
 
such
 
an
 
important
 
moral
 
difference
 
between
 
the
 
two
 
that,
 
although
  
the
  
latter
  
is
  
sometimes
  
permissible,
  
the
  
former
  
is
  
always
 
forbidden. This
 
doctrine
 
may
 
be
 
challenged
 
for
 
several
 
reasons. First
 
of
 
all,
 
active
 
euthanasia
 
is
 
in
 
many
 
cases
 
more
 
humane
 
than
 
passive
 
euthanasia. Secondly,
 
the
 
conventional
 
doctrine
 
leads
 
to
 
decisions
 
concerning
 
life
 
and
 
death
 
on
 
irrelevant
 
grounds. Thirdly,
 
the
 
doctrine
 
rests
 
on
 
a
 
distinction
 
between
 
killing
 
and
 
letting
 
die
 
that
 
itself
 
has
 
no
 
moral
 
importance. Fourthly,
 
the
 
most
 
common
 
arguments
 
in
 
favor
 
of
 
the
  
doctrine
  
are
  
invalid. I
  
therefore
  
suggest
  
that
  
the
  
American
 
Medical
 
Association
 
policy
 
statement
 
that
 
endorses
 
this
 
doctrine
 
is
 
unsound. The
  
distinction
  
between
  
active
  
and
  
passive
  
euthanasia
  
is
  
thought
  
to
  
be
 
crucial
 
for
 
medical
 
ethics. The
 
idea
 
is
 
that
 
it
 
is
 
permissible,
 
at
 
least
 
in
 
some
 
cases,
  
to
  
withhold
  
treatment
  
and
  
allow
  
a
  
patient
  
to
  
die,
  
but
  
it
  
is
  
never
 
permissible
  
to
  
take
  
any
  
direct
  
action
  
designed
  
to
  
kill
  
the
  
patient.