If someone offers you an arguement, you fundamentally only have two

courses of action.
Refute the truth of the premises, fight the reasoning of the conclusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Euthanasia

[Philosophers like distinctions.]

Voluntary vs Involuntary

I cannot get consent from comatose. I can get advanced directive from
instructions before comatose, but that's still how you felt then. What if it
changed? There is no clear cut permisibility. Can I ask families? What if they
benefit? There is no unbiased course of action. This is involuntary euthanasia.
If you give

Passive vs Active

What kills the patient? Cancer is going to kill you in a month. If I give you an
overdose, this is Active Euthanasia. Who killed you? I did. It's the doctor's
action that leads to a patients death. Preemptive. You're on the respirator.
You've been smoking for decades. The decision has been made to turn off the
respirator. I still have to take actions to hasten the death, but it's passive
crucially because what kills you is the disease.

Medical Orthodox
Active Euthanasia is never morally permisible.
Passive Euthanasia is sometimes morally permisible.
[Physician Assisted Suicide is not technically Active Euthanasia]

Rachel's Main Thesis

Active Euthanasia & Passive Euthanasia are morally equivalent.

If Active Euthanasia is permisible in a case, so is Passive Euthanasia.

If Passive Euthanasia is permisible in a case, so is Active Euthanasia.

[rant] Taking the distinction to be morally relevant has bad, avoidable

consequences. If you ask Rachel, why do you think this is better? 'Look we
have avoidable suffering. If avoiding suffereing can be done with euthanasia,
then why not? If you're dying in 8 weeks, but you're told to tough it out?
That's terrible. Why can't we end that? Avoid the eight weeks entirely. Do you
want the shot? Take it. Avoided the suffering entirely. (Avoidable Suffering)
(Making life or death decisions on irrelevant grounds) Every year many babies
are born with down syndrome. Many parents wish they did not have babies
with down syndrome. You can't kill a baby just because it has down
syndrome. Intestinal Blockage. Down syndrome babies are often born with
Intestinal Blockage. Genetic problem. It is easily fixed with surgery. Babies
who are born with Intestinal blockage but are otherwise normal? Their
parents 100% of the time elect to have the surgery. Babies who are born with
Intestinal blockage but also have Down syndrome? Less than 100%. You are
allowed to kill the baby if it has intestinal blockage. Passive Euthanasia.
Children are incapable of giving consent. If you can decline the surgery for
yourself, you can decline the surgery for your child. [/rant]

Rachel's Main Arguement

1. Killing and letting die are morally equivalent.
2. Active Euthanasia is killing
3. Passive Euthanasia is letting die
4. AE and PE are morally equivallent.

Two and Three are obviously true. So is One true leading to the conclusion of
Four being true?
If Rachel can somehow prove that his first premise is true, then he wins his
arguement for sure. It seems like it might be hard to prove. Most people
would deny it outright. So how is he going to defend his first premise?

Smith-Jones Arguement

We need two cases. Totally identical, everything is constant. Except two very
things. Killing, and letting die. If killing is worse, then we'll see that clearly. If
it is not, then we will see. The very difference between killing and letting die
changes anything. He thinks he has found two cases that are exactly like
that.
Smith desperately needs money. He is the guardian of his orphaned nephew,
the heir of a large fortune were he to die. So Smith decides one day, fuck it.
The boy is taking a bath upstairs and he marches up the stairs, rolls up his
sleeves, and holds the boy under water until he drowns.
He's a bad man.

Jones desperately needs money. He is the guardian of his orphaned nephew,

the heir of a large fortune were he to die. So Jones decides one day, fuck it.
The boy is taking a bath upstairs and he marches up the stairs, rolls up his
sleeves, but as he enters he sees that the boy has slipped, hit his head on the
spigot, and is face down in the water. Jones sits and watches. He is ready to
push his head in if he needs to.
Is he a bad man?

1. Smith and Jones are equally bad

2. If killing and letting die are not morally equivalent, then Smith and Jones
are not equally bad.
3. Killing and letting die are morally equivalent.

Euthanasia with Criminals morally relevant vs Capital Punishment morally

relevant?