in “active and passive euthanasia”, what is the view that rachels is defending? course hero

What is Rachel’s thesis on euthanasia?

 · The late philosopher James Rachels published one of the most salient pieces on the euthanasia (E) debate in 1975 in The New England Journal of Medicine titled “Active and Passive Euthanasia.”. Here is a brief outline of his argument. The distinction between active euthanasia (AE) and passive (PE) is thought crucial. This is mistaken.

What is the summary of active and passive euthanasia?

 · When performing euthanasia, no matter the intentions, someone still dies. There is no moral distinction between letting die and killing someone because the action’s result is the same. If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa. My Thesis: James Rachels’ argument in the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” challenges …

Should euthanasia be used to euthanize mentally ill people?

 · Critical Summary: Active and Passive Euthanasia (James Rachels) James Rachels argues against the traditional doctrine in medicine that prohibits the physician from taking any action which would contribute to the death of a patient. Rachels takes the position that in some cases, abiding by this doctrine leads to more suffering. In the situation where continued …

What two cases does Rachels present to motivate his argument?

a) It wisely upholds the traditional moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. b) Its acceptance of passive euthanasia draws us into dangerous moral territory. c) It unwisely opposes active euthanasia, which is sometimes morally preferable to passive euthanasia. d) It leaves far too much to the discretion of the patient and the ...

What does James Rachels have to say about the difference between active and passive euthanasia?

Rachels challenges the conventional view that passive euthanasia is permissible but active euthanasia is not. This view is endorsed by the American Medical Association in a 1973 statement. But Rachels holds that in some cases active euthanasia is morally preferable to passive euthanasia on utilitarian grounds.

What is James Rachels view?

Rachels argued that the primary reason why cruelty to animals is wrong is because tortured animals suffer, just as tortured humans suffer. He held the view that inflicting pain on animals can sometimes be justified but we must have a sufficiently good reason for doing so.

Does Rachels believe there is an inherent difference between active and passive euthanasia?

Summary: In this scholarly article, philosopher James Rachels argues that there is no significant moral difference between active and passive euthanasia or between killing and letting die.

What is Rachels main thesis?

what is James Rachel's main thesis? Active and Passive Euthanasia are morally equivalent. What is distinctive about active euthanasia? That the doctor's action is what causes the death of the patient.

What is active and passive euthanasia?

Types of euthanasia Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia. Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube.

What is James Rachels argument on euthanasia?

Dr. Rachels, who spent much of his career as a philosophy professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, broke ground by arguing that actively killing a patient with a terminal illness was no worse morally than letting the person die by doing nothing.

What is cultural relativism according to Rachels?

Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different.

What moral precept is the basis for disallowing active euthanasia?

What moral precept is the basis for disallowing active euthanasia? Active euthanasia ought to be morally impermissible because if practiced, it would violate the notion that it is always wrong to intentionally end an innocent life.

What is the point of Foot's discussion of positive and negative rights?

What is the point of Foot's discussion of positive and negative rights? Foot must not only argue for her main thesis, but provide an objection to Rachels' argument of the opposite conclusion.

Which of the following best captures the meaning of euthanasia?

Which of the following best captures Gay-Williams's definition of euthanasia? Intentionally taking the life of a person who is suffering from a disease from which he or she will not recover..

What is the conventional doctrine on euthanasia?

The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden.

Who wrote the article "Active and Passive Euthanasia"?

Article: “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels. (2017, Feb 01). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/article-active-and-passive-euthanasia-by-james-rachels/

What is the argument for Rachel's thesis?

Argument for Rachel’s Thesis: Active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. Intentions and actions are two separate ideas which cannot be compared. He also explains how inaction is still an action because there is a consequence. When performing euthanasia, no matter the intentions, someone still dies.

How to criticize Rachels' argument?

Part II: It is simple to criticize the argument of Rachels by saying that the intentions of an action are more important than the outcome of an action. Consider this situation: a baby with intestinal problems is born to parents who would rather let the baby die than have the doctor perform lifesaving surgery that would keep the baby alive, but leave it forever handicapped. This action is deemed immoral due to the parents’ wish for the baby to be dead if it meant it would be challenged for the rest of its life. This situation proves that although there may not be a concrete distinction between killing and letting die, there is always a conscious decision made that evaluates the morality of the situation.

Is euthanasia more human than passive euthanasia?

Although Rachels is correct in saying that active euthanasia is considered more human than passive euthanasia in the situation of a terminally ill patient who is experiencing unneeded amounts of pain and suffering, the preservation of life is something that needs to be considered. According to philosopher Daniel Callahan, people suffer, ...

Is killing someone worse than letting someone die?

The argument of Rachels that killing someone is not worse than letting someone die in regards to passive and active euthanasia is morally unsound for a number of reasons, one being the precious entity of human life. Although Rachels is correct in saying that active euthanasia is considered more human than passive euthanasia in the situation ...

Is it morally permissible to let someone die?

When performing euthanasia, no matter the intentions, someone still dies. There is no moral distinction between letting die and killing someone because the action’s result is the same. If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa. My Thesis: James Rachels’ argument in the article “Active ...

Is it correct to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he does one

Killing someone is not worse than letting someone die. “It is not exactly correct to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he does one thing…he lets the patient die.”.

What does James Rachels argue against?

James Rachels argues against the traditional doctrine in medicine that prohibits the physician from taking any action which would contribute to the death of a patient. Rachels takes the position that in some cases, abiding by this doctrine leads to more suffering. In the situation where continued medical support would prolong suffering, doctors have the option of discontinuing support. If, according to Rachel, they choose that option on the basis of reducing suffering then they can do better with active euthanasia.

Is euthanasia a moral distinction?

This is supported by Rachels’ argument that passive and active euthanasia have no moral distinction–they are both intentional acts to terminate the life of the patient. While I completely agree with Rachels’ argument that passive and active euthanasia have no moral distinction (that both are murder), I utilize it to support the other argument supporting life despite the suffering involved. I don’t think euthanasia (passive nor active) are ethical on the grounds that life is sacred. Both forms of euthanasia are murder just like Rachels said, and immoral.

What does T/F Rachels believe?

T/F Rachels believes that criminal charges should be pressed against doctors who kill their patients for whatever reason.

What is T/F in euthanasia?

T/F Withholding treatment with the intention of ending the patient's life, to prevent the patient's further suffering, is an example of active euthanasia.

Is Jones' behavior less reprehensible than Smith's?

Yet, Jones’ behavior is not less reprehensible than Smith’s.

Is euthanasia morally worse than letting die?

In the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” James Rachels argues that active euthanasia is not morally worse than passive euthanasia. He thinks that many people believe the former to be morally worse than the latter, because they think that killing is morally worse than letting die. And, because active euthanasia is a form of killing while passive euthanasia is form of letting die, the former is morally worse than the latter. In order to motivate his argument, Rachels presents the following two cases, which he claims are exactly alike except that the first is a case of killing and the second is a case of letting die.