Jacquelyn Rowe
PHIL 380-B01
September 18, 2020
Response Paper 2: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Response Paper 2: Active and Passive Euthanasia
The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is a crucial component in regards
to medical ethics. In active euthanasia, a person deliberately causes the patient's death. In passive
euthanasia, they just allow them to die. I agree with Rachel’s argument that active euthanasia is
more merciful than passive. The reasoning is that active euthanasia is intended to relieve the pain
and prevent further suffering by allowing a painless death. On the other hand, passive euthanasia
prolongs pain and results in more suffering. The argument that physicians who allow a patient to
die has better intentions than those who actively kill is morally irrelevant. To me, passive
euthanasia can be permissible to a severely patient and the action of to speed up death to relieve
pain should have similar status. The argument in the article for the support of active euthanasia
of a Down’s syndrome child is valid because letting the infant die is more inhumane than a death
caused by active euthanasia.
The conventional doctrine used by physicians is based on irrelevant grounds. First,
withholding treatment with the intention of ending the patient’s life is more agonizing. In
addition, Rachels argues that passive euthanasia can be relatively slow and painful compared to
options, such as lethal injection, which accelerates death. Rachels uses this claim to say that there
is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia. He makes a good argument in that
the actual cause of death through either form of euthanasia is no more wrong than the other. In
the instance of the boy in the bathtub illustration, Jones' justification that he did not kill the boy
but rather just let the boy die has no defense and can be regarded as an absurd statement.
I agree with the author that Smith and Jones' action of commission and omission are
exactly alike. Both had the intention of killing their cousin for their own personal gain. Rachels
once again argues that the action of Jones letting the boy drown all by himself is not morally
superior to Smith's action to actively drown the boy making his action the only difference
involved in the two scenarios.
When life-sustaining treatment to an ill patient is deemed of little to no benefit to the
patient, euthanasia can be necessary. If the circumstances of the patient’s condition warrants no
other treatment then active and passive euthanasia are alike in that they result in the death of the
patient. However, the decision then becomes one of moral regards and questions did the medical
care team do everything possible, especially for a curable illness, before resulting to euthanasia.
It is true that the only difference between active involves the commission and the passive
euthanasia involves omission. Most medical professionals, including myself, make a moral
distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Some think that it is acceptable to withhold
treatment and allow a patient to die, but that it is never acceptable to kill a patient by a deliberate
act, and vice versa. As for me, I have seen euthanasia in the hospital setting. I have been the
nurse caring for a hospice patient that drew their last breath after I pushed medications to relieve
their pain. I have also seen physicians make the tough decision to withdraw all forms of
treatment from patients and make them comfortable. However, these scenarios have occurred
only when all treatment options have been exhausted. Whenever an act is done deliberately to
cause death to someone who could have been treated properly, then the issue of moral injustice
arises.
