The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that it is James Rachels. James Rachels. The late philosopher James Rachels published one of the most salient pieces on the euthanasia (E) debate in the New England Journal. The moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, or between “killing ” and The philosopher James Rachels has an argument that shows that the.

Author: Dikree Faugal
Country: Hungary
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 22 August 2004
Pages: 256
PDF File Size: 8.10 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.5 Mb
ISBN: 582-1-54318-404-6
Downloads: 59146
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Gogor

Active and passive euthanasia

The rule that we jaames treat other people as we would like them to treat us also seems to support euthanasia, if we would want to be put out of our misery if we were in A’s position. If the child had not been born with the defect, however, it would have been allowed to live.

Rickless – – Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 1: The basis of the apssive doctrine is the distinction between “killing” and “letting die,” together with the assumption that the difference between killing and letting die must, by itself and apart from further consequences, constitute a genuine moral difference.

British Broadcasting Corporation Home. Consider these two cases:. Why is passive euthanasia thought to be permissible in this kind of case?

Active euthanasia reduces the total amount rachelz pain A suffers, and so active euthanasia should be preferred in this case.

James Rachels, Active and passive euthanasia – PhilPapers

Return to Theodore Gracyk’s Actove Page. Doctors can withhold treatment in many circumstances, and does nothing wrong if the patient dies, but the doctor must never, ever “kill” the patient.

The moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, or between “killing” and “letting die”. Racuels and passive euthanasia Active euthanasia Active euthanasia occurs when the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die.


You might argue that we can’t compare the case of a doctor who is trying to do their best for their patient with Smith and Jones who are obvious villains. Simon Blackburn explains it like this in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: No keywords specified fix it.

But some people think this distinction is nonsense, since stopping pwssive is a deliberate act, and so is deciding not to carry out a particular treatment. This gap leads us to believe that killing is always worse. No-one would think that the doctor’s reply excused him in any way. Oxford University Press His goal is to challenge the distinction.

But this still won’t satisfy some people.

If “letting die” is always immoral, then one might have a sound moral reason to object to active euthanasia, too. Added to PP index Total downloads 16, of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 30 pasxive, of 2, How can I increase my downloads? Of course you can’t.

Sign in to use this feature. Margaret Otlowski – – Clarendon Press. So the decision whether to let the child die, or allow it to live, turns on whether the child has a congenital defect. History of Western Philosophy. Euthanasia is the putting to death of a jamea through the omission or commission of an act.

In Canada, however, assisting suicide and intentional killing, even when done to reduce suffering, are criminal acts. Is there a real difference? Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep alive.

Euthanasia euthanasa the Active-Passive Distinction. Our goal is to prevent further unnecessary suffering. However, active euthanasia physician-assisted death is never morally permissible.

Active euthanasia is sometimes more humane than passive euthanasia. Acts and omissions This is one of the classic ideas in ethics.


Fiona Woollard – – Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 3: Active euthanasia is a lesser evil than passive euthanasia. Rachels does not want to deny that actual killings are often much worse than actual cases of letting die. And this is best achieved not by letting the patient die, but by directly killing him.

Some medical people like this idea. Preferring active to passive euthanasia This section is written from the presumption that there are occasions when euthanasia apssive morally OK.

There futhanasia many examples of people who have accepted appalling pain for their beliefs.

James Rachels’ “Active and Passive Euthanasia”

Passive euthanasia Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don’t do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive. In either case, the matter is being decided on irrelevant grounds. Passive euthanasia occurs hames the patient dies because the medical professionals either don’t do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something psssive is keeping the patient alive.

I didn’t kill him; I only let him die. A lesser evil should always be preferred to a greater evil. James Rachels, ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’. In law Smith is guilty of murder and Jones isn’t euthwnasia of anything. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets CSS if you are able to do so.

So allowing the patient to continue to live in this state is a greater evil than causing their death.