Deck 45: James Rachels

Question 1

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Describe the conventional doctrine regarding active and passive euthanasia. What do you think is the strongest argument in support of this position? What is the most powerful objection to this position? Do you think the doctrine is correct?

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Explain Rachels's example of infants with Down's syndrome that require intestinal surgery. What conclusions does Rachels draw from this example? Do you agree with him?

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Is there a moral difference between killing and letting die? What, if anything, can Rachels's example of Smith and Jones tell us about this issue?

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Should euthanasia be allowed? If so, is there any morally significant difference between active and passive euthanasia? Defend your answer.

Question 5

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-What is the "conventional doctrine" regarding active and passive euthanasia? What reasons are typically given in support of this view? Do you think they are good reasons? Why or why not?

Question 6

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-What objections does Rachels raise to the conventional doctrine? Do they succeed in undermining the view? Defend your answer.

Question 7

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Does Rachels think that there is a moral difference between killing and letting die? What reasons does he give for his view? Do you find his position plausible?

Question 8

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Passive euthanasia is:

A) the intentional termination of one's life by another person, to relieve pain and suffering.
B) the cessation of the employment of "extraordinary means" to prolong one's life.
C) intentionally causing a patient's death, against the patient's wishes.
D) the refusal to treat a patient, against the patient's wishes.

Question 9

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-According to the conventional doctrine:

A) active euthanasia is sometimes permissible, but passive euthanasia never is.
B) passive euthanasia is sometimes permissible, but active euthanasia never is.
C) both active and passive euthanasia are sometimes permissible.
D) neither active nor passive euthanasia are ever permissible.

Question 10

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels claims that active euthanasia:

A) typically leads to more suffering than passive euthanasia.
B) typically leads to the same amount of suffering as passive euthanasia.
C) typically leads to less suffering than passive euthanasia.
D) none of the above.

Question 11

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-According to Rachels, if a doctor lets a patient die for humane reasons:

A) she acts impermissibly.
B) she acts permissibly.
C) she is not in the same moral position as if she had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons.
D) she is in the same moral position as if she had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons.

Question 12

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine:

A) is self-evidently correct.
B) is counterintuitive, but can be supported by strong arguments.
C) leads to decisions concerning life and death made on morally irrelevant grounds.
D) leads to patients being euthanized against their will.

Question 13

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-In Rachels's case of Smith and Jones:

A) Smith and Jones have the same intentions.
B) Smith intents to kill while Jones does not.
C) Jones intents to kill while Smith does not.
D) neither Jones nor Smith intents to kill.

Question 14

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-According to Rachels, many people accept the conventional doctrine because they believe:

A) killing is intrinsically worse than letting die.
B) there is no intrinsic moral difference between killing and letting die.
C) letting die is morally worse than killing.
D) it is never permissible either to let someone die or to kill them.

Question 15

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-According to Rachels, the case of Smith and Jones shows that:

A) killing is intrinsically worse than letting die.
B) there is no intrinsic moral difference between killing and letting die.
C) letting die is morally worse than killing.
D) it is never permissible either to let someone die or to kill them.

Question 16

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-According to Rachels, many people view killing to be, in itself, morally worse than letting die because:

A) most actual cases of killing are morally reprehensible.
B) most actual cases of letting die are motivated by humanitarian reasons.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 17

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels concludes that:

A) active euthanasia is always worse than passive euthanasia.
B) passive euthanasia is always worse than active euthanasia.
C) active euthanasia is always morally permissible.
D) none of the above.

Question 18

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels claims that once it has been decided that euthanasia is desirable in a case:

A) a moral error has already been made.
B) it has been decided that death is no greater an evil than the patient's continued existence.
C) it has been decided that the patient does not have a right to life.
D) the amount of suffering of the patient becomes irrelevant.

Question 19

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels claims that:

A) there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, considered in themselves.
B) there is no moral difference between the consequences of active and passive euthanasia.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 20

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-According to Rachels, active euthanasia is currently:

A) forbidden by law, and conventionally considered immoral.
B) forbidden by law, but conventionally considered permissible.
C) permitted by law, but conventionally considered immoral.
D) permitted by law, and conventionally considered permissible.

Question 21

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-According to the conventional doctrine, active euthanasia is not morally permissible except in rare circumstances.

Question 22

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels claims that the conventional doctrine is mistaken.

Question 23

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels claims that in almost all cases, active euthanasia leads to less suffering than active euthanasia.

Question 24

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death made on irrelevant grounds.

Question 25

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-In the case of Smith and Jones, Rachels claims that there is a morally relevant difference between the actions of the two men.

Question 26

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels claims that most actual cases of killing are no worse than most actual cases of letting die.

Question 27

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-According to Rachels, in cases of passive euthanasia the doctor does not do anything.

Question 28

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels claims that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, considered in themselves.

Question 29

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by another person, for the sake of relieving the pain and suffering of the patient. Passive euthanasia is the cessation of medical assistance needed to prolong a patient's life, again performed for the sake of relieving pain and suffering. The conventional doctrine in medical ethics is that whereas passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible, active euthanasia never is. Rachels argues that the conventional doctrine faces serious objections, and cannot be correct.
Rachels raises two objections to the conventional doctrine. The first is that the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate pain and suffering, and in many cases active euthanasia can serve this function much more efficiently than passive euthanasia. Thus, if a decision has been made to employ euthanasia, active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia. Rachels's second objection is that the conventional doctrine leads to decisions about life and death being made on morally irrelevant grounds. For example, passive euthanasia is sometimes employed on infants born with Down's syndrome who would require a simple surgery to survive. Such infants are allowed to die not because they require surgery, but because they have Down's syndrome. The decision to euthanize such infants depends on the irrelevant fact that they require a simple operation.
The acceptance of the conventional doctrine is often grounded in the view that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Against this, Rachels imagines two cases that are exactly alike in every respect, except that one involves killing and the other involves letting die. In the first case, Smith drowns his young cousin to gain his inheritance. In the second case, Jones, like Smith, intends to kill his young cousin, but ends up (because of a slippery bath tub) merely watching him drown. Rachels claims that the two men behave equally wrongly, and that this shows there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction between killing and letting die thus cannot be used to support the conventional doctrine
-Rachels claims that there is no moral difference between the consequences of active and passive euthanasia.