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:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- According to the Reading & Study material, are AE and PE “exactly alike except that one involves killing whereas the other involves letting someone die”?
- In his fourth argument, Rachels seems to believe that the only difference between AE and PE
Sample Solution