Phil 380 Response Paper: Active and Passive Euthanasia Assignment

In the Learn section of Module 4: Week 4, find the item Read: Active and Passive Euthanasia and address the following questions:

In this article, philosopher James Rachels attempts to erase the distinction between active euthanasia (AE) and passive euthanasia (PE) and suggest that if one is ethically permissible, the other should be also be permissible in similar, morally relevant situations. Read the article and address the following questions:

1. Rachels’s first argument is that AE is often preferable to PE because AE is more merciful towards those who are suffering extreme pain. Do you agree? While one can recognize a strong emotional appeal here, is this morally relevant to the issue of intentionally ending a life? Do you think his use of the Down’s syndrome child is effective?
2. Rachels’ s second argument is critical of decisions based on “irrelevant grounds.” What are the irrelevant ground he mentions? Do you think he makes a good argument here? Do you think that the fact he uses a downs syndrome child muddies the water with this point?
3. Rachels claims that the analogy of the boy in the bathtub contains 2 cases “that are exactly alike except that one involves killing whereas the other involves letting someone die.” Are they exactly alike? What are some differences between the “boy in the bathtub illustration” and the active/passive distinction?
4. According to the Reading & Study material, are AE and PE “exactly alike except that one involves killing whereas the other involves letting someone die”?
5. In his fourth argument, Rachels seems to believe that the only difference between AE and PE is that AE involves action and PE involves inaction. Is that true? Is that what makes the moral difference?

Solution: Phil 380 Response Paper: Active and Passive Euthanasia Assignment

James Rachels’ article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” challenges the conventional moral doctrine that draws a significant distinction between active (AE) and passive euthanasia (PE)[1]. The traditional view holds that while PE, which involves withholding treatment, may be permissible in some cases, active euthanasia (AE), where direct action is taken to end a patient’s life, is always forbidden.1

Response to Rachels’ First Argument

Rachels’ argument that AE may be more merciful towards those suffering extreme pain than PE may have an emotional appeal and present concerns about the moral relevance of mercy with ending someone’s life intentionally1. The moral debate on euthanasia remains complex and dynamic, in which various aspects, including the person’s pain and suffering, autonomy, and sanctity of life must be taken into consideration. Relieving someone’s pain and suffering appears a noble aim. However, intentional killing presents ethical concerns about human life and the potential for euthanasia abuse. Rachels’ use of a Down syndrome child in her argument is effective as it highlights the potential for suffering when treatment is withdrawn based on irrelevant reasons. However, it presents the risk of oversimplification of ethical considerations in end-of-life decisions, especially in the case of disabilities.

Response to Rachels’ Second Argument

Rachels criticizes decisions based on “irrelevant grounds,” such as withholding treatment…..Please click purchase button below to get full answer for $10

Related:(Solution) Phil 380 Personal Code of Ethics: End of Life Assignment