1

Name:

Instructor:

Course:

Date:

Are the arguments for/against active or passive euthanasia sound?

Introduction

Active and passive euthanasia can be easily distinguished by their definitions in society;

Active euthanasia or ‘Killing’ is described a starting a sequence or chain of events that causally

link and cause the demise of the patient while passive euthanasia or “letting die” is defined as

being in a position to prevent the death of a person while a causal chain of events that will lead to

their demise unfolds but still allowing them to die. Alternatively, passive euthanasia is defined as

playing a passive role by deliberately allowing a consenting patient to die or by denying them

access to extraordinary means of extending the body’s life as the medical doctrine puts it.. The

arguments for and against this philosophical difference are very prevalent and James Rachels

addresses them exhaustively in her book Active and Passive Euthanasia. This paper aims to

investigate the validity of these arguments and identify the false or implausible claims in the

arguments.

Descriptive paragraph

The purpose for writing this article for the author is to disagree with the medical doctrine

that suggests that there exists an important distinction between passive and active euthanasia. He
 2

rejects this doctrine by providing a number of reasons as to why this doctrine is logically

unsound and not advisable. He even goes as far as to say active euthanasia is objectively better

than passive euthanasia. His arguments are presented using a four-point refutation that provides

thoughtful examples to allow one to reason effectively. His first refutation concerns the

inconsistency that surrounds the application of humanitarian impulse within the doctrine’s

reasoning. Active euthanasia is preferrable to passive euthanasia in the case of a dying cancer

patient who is in extreme pain and agrees, along with his kin, to be euthanized. If one is to go

along with the core reasoning behind euthanizing- which is humanity, then they have to apply it

in a situation where there is a choice between passive and active euthanasia too. The second

refutation concerns the grounds on which the decision of life or death is termed moral or

immoral. The example of a baby who is born with Down’s syndrome is used. Sometimes, such

an unfortunate baby is also born with an operable unrelated condition. In the second case, the

baby’s death is agreed upon by the doctors and parents of the baby while in the first the baby is

allowed to live. This inconsistency translates to the active vs passive euthanasia argument; in the

case where the baby has an extra fatal problem it is deemed preferable to let the child die from

the condition as a form of cruel euthanasia as opposed to giving them a lethal injection. In this

case, the grounds for life or death are decided by the extra condition while the real reason the

child dies is Down’s syndrome. The third refutation concerns the common misconception that

‘letting die’ is morally better than ‘killing.’ This is not true. There does not exist an objective

moral distinction between letting die and kill for if the patient were to die from a disease that

would later be discovered to have been curable, the regret within the doctor is the same whether

he let the baby die or directly killed it. Part of the reason why active euthanasia is viewed so

negatively is because of the frequency of presentation of both cases in real life. cases about
 3

murders are quite common but it is incredibly rare to find a case where the crime was letting

someone die. This disproportionate coverage leads us to believe that killing is worse and creates

the unfavorable impression that surrounds active euthanasia. The example provided of the

drowned 6-year-old cousin to two people who would inherit his fortune upon his death contrasts

the two views by providing a similar environment for both to take place (including standardizing

the argument by giving the actors of death the same intention and motive) to show that morally

the two cases are not any different and that the moral objections inserted by humans are both

pointless and wrong. The final refutation concerns the validity of arguments that are in favor of

passive euthanasia. The most common of these arguments is that action should not be judged by

the same moral standard as inaction even though no clear basis for objective comparison for

morality in these situations is provided by the AMA. Another significant argument that is made

by people working in the medical profession is that people that don’t work in the medical sector

and don’t have to physically go through this have a limited impression of what it is like. As

perhaps many of them will think that this argument is the sort that philosophers make while

enclosed in the comforts of theory and imagination, and that perhaps these matters have no effect

on the daily life of philosophers. Their case follows that for people working in this sector; people

who have to carry out the euthanasia, the perspective is different. A nurse that has to administer a

lethal injection to a child finds that decision very difficult and the loneliness of this decision is

further compounded by the absence of the baby’s parents during the euthanasia. The argument

that active euthanasia goes against the fundamental rule of the medical profession is another that

is presented as a defense for the medical practitioners’ stance on active euthanasia. This stance

has no foundation as it has been shown that there is no moral difference between active and

passive euthanasia. In fact, the morality of the decision in this case is determined by the
 4

consequences and not the method. It is also more morally permissible to administer a quick

painless death as opposed to a painful drawn-out demise so morality cannot be used as a defense

in this case.

Normative Paragraph

The first refutation to the doctrine contains a critical flaw: passive euthanasia is

exclusively portrayed as a bad option that only leads to unbearable pain instead of leading away

from it. The truth is that in the United States passive euthanasia mostly involves receiving

medication to alleviate pain while awaiting the inevitable death. By substituting the truth for the

assumption, the refutation fails to hold and the point becomes much weaker. The refutation

should only hold true for cases in which the patient has been determined to be in blinding agony

and the only options for passive euthanasia involve ineffectual treatment of pain. The important

distinction here is that while passive euthanasia involves a patient getting away from pain

through death, pain is not a necessary ingredient for euthanasia to be completed as suggested by

the arguments and examples given in the refutation.

The first refutation contains another flaw: it is assumed that active euthanasia- in the form

of lethal injection, is painless and harmless (except in the obvious fact of its purpose) and this is

not the case all the time. Some people have a paralyzing fear of needles or another fear that will

cause the entire active euthanasia process to be very terrifying and painful to the patient. Some

patients may also carry undiagnosed allergies to certain molecules in the lethal agent that will

certainly make the whole process painful for the patient and counter the original purpose of

delivering a quick, painless and humane death.

 5

In the first refutation, the example used to indicate a victory for active euthanasia is

extreme and may not be representative of the general situation. The doctor in this scenario

administers passive euthanasia to a dying child by watching it slowly die as opposed to a quick

lethal injection to show that active euthanasia is the obvious solution. This is misleading with

regard to the overall theme. The doctor is misrepresented as a sadistic and negative figure that

represents death and hopelessness. This can be construed to represent a cognitive bias on the part

of the refuter. This perspective makes it appear that passive euthanasia is a most cruel and

undesirable choice for the patient and therefore making active euthanasia appear a better option.

In the second refutation, it is hidden from plain view that the parents of the unfortunate

child that is euthanized passively agree to its death when there exists an extra fatal condition to

use it as an excuse to justify killing the child. In effect, they use this to assuage the inner morality

and to have a ready-made reason for themselves and others as to why they did it.

While ‘letting die’ and ‘killing’ may carry different connotations but lack an objective

difference morally, the other factors on both sides of the argument are rarely the same in real life.

Through further consideration one comes to the realization that the only application of morality

in this instance is in the form of the willingness to kill of the actor. As this is not empirically

measurable, it does not count as a solution.

Of note too is the fact that there are no considerations made for the possibility of an

unlawful active euthanasia being undertaken on a patient. In the case of a man whose fortune is

being fought over by his descendants, the active euthanasia that may present itself as an

attractive option to parties that benefit directly from the man’s immediate death and the

euthanasia may be carried out maliciously albeit in a lawful appearance.

 6

In the final refutation, the refutation made against action vs inaction basically strips down

to the same truth that not taking an action that would save a life in itself constitutes an action to

kill the man. The proponents of either side (action or inaction) can make a sound argument for

either with the right examples and their exclusion should not be taken as inexistence. There are

several circumstances where inaction is different from action as in the case where inaction may

provide more time to consider the life changing decision or provide more time to find a suitable

donor in the case of a chronic organ problem.

Finally, the refutations bear distinct evidence of a straw man argument. The straw man on

this occasion is the doctors and their non-professional beliefs and inclinations which are not the

same of the doctrine they are tasked with obeying. While the refutations mainly focus on

opposing the doctrine imposed by the AMA, they also carry an attack on the persons that

proposed and forced down the doctrine on doctors, and they also attack the doctors instead of

their ideals only. In particular, the argument in the conclusion demands that doctors not pretend

to be staying on the morally correct path when they administer the painful euthanasia on the

patients and instead admit that they only allow themselves to form a distinction in order to stay

on the right side of the law.

7