James rachels argument against the traditional medical doctrine in active and passive euthanasia

Our moral thinking is especially vulnerable to this sort of corruption. Indeed, the more detailed an advance directive is, the more likely it is to vary from events that actually occur. To say otherwise is to endorse the option that leads to more suffering rather than less, and is contrary ti the humanitarian impulse that prompts the decision not to prolong his life in the first place.

Capital punishment and killing in war are traditionally sanctioned, on the grounds that the people who are killed are not innocent. Now, the conventional doctrine says that letting die is sometimes permissible, whereas killing is always forbidden. It is "living" because it takes effect before death.

The traditional view is not, however, a simple view. Physicians do not consult each other often about these cases. It is the intentional killing of innocent humans that is absolutely forbidden.

Because of this, the practice is unacceptable within the Church. Patients and their families should also be cautioned about telephoning if the suicide attempt fails. Director, Missouri Department of Health. Their death now when they otherwise would not have died is self-inflicted, whether they take a lethal poison or disconnect a respirator.


CDE is false if passive euthanasia is morally impermissible and active euthanasia is morally permissible. Moreover, some non-human animals also have lives, and so consistency requires that they also be protected by the rule against killing.

Why is the person consulting a physician or mental health professional? The physician is caught in between: Five years is suggested as an appropriate interval for patients to review their decisions.


As the disease progressed, he would have to feed her by forcing her mouth open, and he would bathe her and change her clothes several times each day as she soiled them.

S10 if the instructions in the advance directive of a substantially demented patient with Alzheimer disease are in conflict with the current interests of that patient and the patient no longer remembers, much less identifies with, those instructions, one can question why they should be followed if doing so is against the interests of the patient now.

It is meant to be a moral view, not a religious dogma, binding on moral agents regardless of their theological convictions or lack of them. Nursing Outlook 43 4: The principles of medical ethics of the American Medical Association PMEAMA AMA in effect from its origins until made no mention of an obligation or virtue of veracity, giving physicians unrestricted discretion about what to divulge to patients.

Article: “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels

Killing a person, even one so pitiable as Mrs Florian, is therefore an offence against the Creator. When evaluating the efficacy of treatment modalities, there is big difference between futility as it applies to eventual mortality and futility as it applies to resultant quality of life.

New England Journal of Medicine ; But perhaps the most interesting of the traditional distinctions is between killing people and merely letting people die. Just as Jones enters the bathroom, however, the child slips, hits his head, and falls face down in the water.


Killing someone is not worse than letting someone die. Factors such as the symbolic value of the law, the costs of a program and its enforcement, and the demands of competing programs must also be considered.

Article: “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels Essay

Rachels admits that there may be important moral differences between active and passive euthanasia considering their consequences, but this only strengthens his idea that these differences make active euthanasia the preferable option.Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin In response to Rachels’ thoughts on active and passive euthanasia, I concede to his point on the lack of a moral difference given the argument that he presented.

The argument is a good argument. What I mean by a “good” argument is that his argument has sound logic and reason and if we accept the premises, we must accept the. Rachels is concerned to show that the AMA's doctrine on euthanasia--that passive euthanasia is morally permissible while active euthanasia is morally impermissible, the so-called Conventional Doctrine on Euthanasia (CDE)--is false.

Lecture Notes. James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia” (, ) Keith Burgess-Jackson. 28 January 1. Biography. James (Jim) Rachels was born in Columbus, Georgia, on 30 May Argument for Rachel’s Thesis: Active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia - Article: “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels introduction.

Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”

Intentions and actions are two separate ideas which cannot be compared. The End of Life Euthanasia and Morality James Rachels (Oxford University Press, ) published in English, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, and Serbo-Croatian Active and passive euthanasia Killing and letting die contrary to reason.

The material presented in this essay adds up to a systematic argument against the traditional view and a.

James rachels argument against the traditional medical doctrine in active and passive euthanasia
Rated 0/5 based on 10 review