Rachels And Nesbitt On Active Euthanasia

There are many different stances one can take when considering active euthanasia versus passive euthanasia. Perhaps one may believe killing someone is far worse than letting someone die, or that there is no difference between killing and letting die. Rachels and Nesbit have different stances on killing versus letting die, both using the nasty cousins argument as an example. Rachels tries to show that there is no difference between killing and letting die and Nesbitt tries to show that killing is worse than letting die. Though Rachels and Nesbitt have well thought through views and examples, perhaps there is not just one side a reader can take, as it seems Rachels and Nesbitt have tried to make their readers believe. Perhaps both views are okay

Since Jones was not prepared to kill his nephew, and Smith was prepared to kill his nephew, than Jones is not as guilty as Smith. Many might agree with Nesbitt that Jones is less guilty, because he was not prepared to kill his nephew and he did not directly kill his nephew. Though this may be true, and some may agree, this only means that letting die was not the same as killing, nor was it as bad morally speaking, in this scenario only. It is not plausible to say that this single scenario reflects every real situation a patient may be going through, similar to Rachels’ nasty cousins example, where killing was the same as letting die. Many people may agree with both scenarios, as they do have valid points, however; there are endless scenarios with endless changes one could make to the story. The end result depends on how the story is tweaked, and the details within the story. Kuhse suggests that maybe killing, or active euthanasia, could be more preferable in some situations, and letting die, or passive euthanasia, is preferable in

Kuhse says, “—he [Nesbitt] also implicitly assumes that death is always and everywhere an evil” (Kuhse 299). Perhaps if death was not considered an “evil” then maybe active euthanasia as a form of mercy killing will be considered a plausible action to take when a patient has a terminal illness or is suffering greatly. Kuhse uses the truck driver incident to show readers exactly what she means by mercy killing. Since the co-driver could not get out of the truck during the accident, and he was burning alive, he asked the other driver to shoot him, in order to put him out of his misery, and so the driver did. Rachels would more than likely agree with this truck driver’s actions, as well as many others including myself, however; Nesbitt, and others like Nesbitt, may suggest that the truck driver has no right to kill a man, that killing him would still be murder, and that is wrong. Though it may technically still be a form of murder, the truck driver acted as any human being with empathy and compassion would act towards someone, or something, that is dying and is in much pain. Kuhse even suggests that if there were more people like the truck driver in the world than we, “should be comforted by their presence” (Kuhse 298). In certain instances, ending the life of someone who is in a lot of pain, whether they specifically ask for active euthanasia or not, should be a considered option, because it