Comparing James Rachel's Article 'Active And Passive Euthanasia'

James Rachels tells us in his article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” about two cases that involve in killing and letting die. He believes that there is no morally difference between killing and letting them die. I openly agree with the reasons James Rachels provided in his article. He gives us two different situations where one is involved in killing and another letting them die. Smith and Jones were planning on getting a decent amount of money from the death of their nephew, so they wanted the child dead.

In one scene, Smith drowns his nephew while he’s taking a bath. In the second scene, Jones plans to drown his nephew while he’s taking a bath, but the child itself slips and hit his head. The nephew ends up drowning without Jones having to kill him. Rachels’ says that the only different between the two scenes were that one did the killing and another letting his nephew die. And that there was no difference between on what Jones and Smith did because they both did wrong.

In Winston Nesbitt article “ Is Killing No Worse Than Letting Die?” has a different opinion on the subject. In his case, Smith and Jones still planned on killing their nephew. Smith goes to kill his nephew in the bathroom and Jones goes to the bathroom to see his nephew but not to kill him. His nephew still ends up slipping and Jones watches him die without doing anything.

Between on what action we take (harming), and what we fail to do (failing to help). I think there is no difference in between doing someone harm and allowing it to happen. At the end, the intentions were the same. Nesbitt might say that killing someone is worse than letting someone die but the fact is that motives were the same, a killer verses bystander killer. It is claimed that if a doctor personally kills a patient and a doctor who withholds a treatment that results in death, they are both responsible for two