The author Rachels argues the case for active and passive euthanasia and concludes that “there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia” despite the explained moral difference. Active euthanasia refers to taking direct actions to terminate the life of a patient while passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatment to allow a patient to die. In passive euthanasia, it is more about letting nature take its course and letting the patient die while active euthanasia is about facilitating the death of the patient by actively killing him (Racheals, 1975). Rachels concludes that active euthanasia is no worse than passive euthanasia and that the difference attributed to the two only acts to serve the law but the moral justification does not hold. Morally, it is wrong to play a role in the death of another and both forms of euthanasia involve a part by medics at the end of the patient's life hence the moral wrong is all the same.
Rachels offers various justifications to her conclusion. One explanation is that upon deciding for euthanasia, it then does not matter the form of euthanasia applied. However, the author believes that in many instances, passive euthanasia is less humane as compared active euthanasia. An example is patient in unbearable pain who is due to die in a few days and whose pain cannot be reduced decides that he does not want to go on living for the remaining few days. The intention of the patient or the family is to cut short the period of pain for the patient given that the patient will continue suffering in pain and will die eventually (Racheals, 1975). By withholding treatment; passive euthanasia, the doctor intends to get the patient from the agony of torture by not prolonging the duration of pain. However, withholding the therapy does not mean instant death which translates to patient being in pain until they dies which beats the idea of euthanasia. In such a case, active euthanasia would aid in ending the suffering of the patient faster which is more conservative.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Racheals challenges the conventional doctrine. She believes that passive euthanasia is whereas active euthanasia is not. In other words, conventional doctrine gives irrelevant grounds for life and death decisions. Medics and family members of patients with conditions that allow for the option of euthanasia may misuse it. For instance, medical practitioners and family may choose to overlook the problem by deciding not to treat the illness in the patient and letting them die. Such move is unrelated to the condition that allows for euthanasia. A good example is the refusal to treat an intestinal disease in a child with Down's syndrome and leave them to die. In this case, the intestinal condition is unrelated to the Down's syndrome. The doctor fails to treat the abdominal condition citing the Down's syndrome as a reason for their decision (Rachels, 1975). Therefore, the decision to not bother treating the intestinal disease yet it is treatable but because of the Down’s syndrome the patient ends up dying for no reason. Such an action is based on irrelevant grounds, more so, given that the two conditions are independent of each other.
The justifications provided by Rachels are prone to objection. According to Rachels, once the decision has been made to end the suffering of patients, active euthanasia is more preferable than passive euthanasia. This is not true since there is a huge difference in letting the patient die naturally. Nevertheless, killing a patient as explained by the law. By withholding treatment and leaving a patient to dies, doctors are allowing nature to take its cause. Medications are meant to divert the effects of a patient's condition from causing death. Therefore, when the treatment has been withdrawn, the impact of the disease lead to the demise of the patient. Withholding treatment does not cut short the natural period of the life of the patients. On the other hand, active euthanasia would mean that the doctors have taken part in cutting short the life of the patient and the death will not be by natural means. Therefore the issue of morality comes up whereby in the case of active euthanasia the doctors actively take part in ending the life of the patient which is morally wrong. Passive euthanasia is more about withholding the process that is delaying the course of nature and hence no one is accountable for the death of the patient.
The idea that euthanasia causes doctors to base their medical decisions on irrelevant grounds is unjustified. This argument can be objected to in that the process of seeking and allowing for euthanasia is a decision of the patient and his family. The medical practitioners rarely make the choice of euthanasia for the patients. The patient and the family are therefore liable for what condition they would prefer euthanasia. When the patient already has a pre-existing condition that is bound to lead to death or a lifetime of pain the family decides on whether they would wish to treat or not. On the other hand, when it is clear that the patient will eventually die or live in excruciating pain and the family and the patients have agreed on euthanasia then treating any other conditions is irrelevant (Rachels, 1975). Addressing the other state will in no way affect the significant condition that leads to euthanasia therefore whether treated or not is not significant which make the justification of basing medical decisions on irrelevant grounds insignificant.
From the analysis, the reasoning behind the doctrine is a distinction between killing and letting the patient die which is morally irrelevant. The morality of letting one die when there is something that one can do to save the situation is tantamount to taking action in facilitating the death. In fact, in some cases, it is logical to aid in the demise of a patient rather than watch them wallow in pain for an unknown period. In both cases, the doctor is contributing to the death of the patient either by facilitating death or not doing anything to prevent or postpone death. The objections to the justifications offer a different perspective on the euthanasia issue. The complaints provide a logical explanation to the issues surrounding administration of euthanasia and the acceptance of passive euthanasia over active euthanasia. The two justifications discussed offer differing viewpoint to the euthanasia issue and the objections provide rational grounds for declining each reason. However, the opposition provides a clear standpoint and explanations of matters surrounding euthanasia hence the argument for the complaints.
In conclusion, Rachels' judgment for the morality of both types of euthanasia is one standpoint. However, different scenarios leading to either kind of euthanasia provide for different perspectives. Also, euthanasia is a step that requires due process before administration, and most choices lie with the patient and the family. The decision as to which form of euthanasia should be used whether passive or active should be a choice of the patient and the family. The law should not bind medical practitioners on the type of euthanasia, and the issue of morality should not come into play regarding which form is moral. In some cases, active euthanasia makes more sense than passive euthanasia considering the objective of the process.
References
Rachels, James (1975). Active and passive euthanasia . Unidentified publisher.
