The Pros And Cons Of Active Euthanasia

Euthanasia has always been a very controversial topic amongst doctors and civilians. Many claim that active euthanasia is wrong no matter what the reason, while others see it as a merciful way for the patient to die. Some would say that passive euthanasia is the morally right thing to do, but others see it as unnecessary pain and suffering for the patient. James Rachels provides a strong argument on why active euthanasia should be allowed and explains the morality of “killing and letting die” In James Rachel’s argument, he explains why “active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia”, how the “conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds”, and how “killing and letting die has no moral importance”. His argument works by giving very reasonable, real world scenarios and justifies why he would choose active euthanasia over passive. In his conclusion, the point he is trying to get across is why there is no moral difference between passive and

Rachels explains how life and death is being decided on irrelevant grounds (page 3). He says that “the matter should be decided, if at all, on that basis (Down’s syndrome), and not be allowed to depend on the essentially irrelevant question of whether the intestinal tract is blocked”. He believes that the doctrine should be rejected because letting a baby die because of obstructed intestinal tracts when it has Down’s syndrome is not the way to decide life and death. It should be solely based on the Down’s syndrome and the judgement of the doctor and parents. It seems because of this, the baby is let to die and not killed. When there is nothing to be done, the baby should be killed and not let to slowly die. Although it seems wrong to kill a baby, the parents and doctor deemed it would be better to let it die, so why let the baby suffer instead of killing it