James Rachel's Arguments Against Active Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a highly controversial topic in the field of medicine despite the American Medical Association currently endorsing one form of it. In order to explore the topic of euthanasia, I will put forth a case in which it is relevant. 80-year -old patient X is currently suffering advanced stages of pancreatic cancer. He is currently in a lot of pain despite being on the maximum amount of pain medication. Given his condition, patient X expresses that the pain is intolerable, and his last wish is to die painlessly and quickly. Both him and his family ask of me (as a hypothetical physician in this hypothetical case), to comply with his wishes and help end his suffering. Prior to discussing my hypothetical mode of action, it is important first
In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels challenges the conventional doctrine’s arguments against active euthanasia and ultimately proposes that active euthanasia should be permissible. He first discusses the justification in favor of passive euthanasia and explains how it can be extended to include active euthanasia. Under the AMA, the CDE is supported as a means to alleviate suffering. Rachels points out that active euthanasia also has the potential to alleviate suffering and therefore should be permissible. He further criticizes passive euthanasia stating that it may prolong the amount of time before death, therefore needlessly prolonging the amount of time a patient shall suffer (Rachels, 1975). He speculates that active euthanasia’s quick and painless manner makes it a much more appealing option in the realm of alleviating suffering (Rachels, 1975). Rachels’ then goes on to refute the moral distinction between “killing” and “letting die” which the CDE currently relies on. To do this, he presents a case in which two men, Smith and Jones, stand to inherit a great some of money should anything happen to their respective 6-year-old cousins. Smith drowns his little cousin and stages it to look like an accident (Rachels, 1975). Jones also planned to kill his little cousin, but upon entering the bathroom, he witnesses his cousin slip, hit his head on
The AMA would approve of passive euthanasia due to patient X’s current state of suffering and his imminent death despite his current treatment. This act of euthanasia would be made to benefit the patient and alleviate his suffering. Patient X wishes to die quickly and painlessly, therefore I believe euthanasia is the best option. Upon first considering passive euthanasia, I also consider the time it will take for my patient to succumb to his illness and pass away. If I employ passive euthanasia, his suffering may be inconsiderately prolonged and therefore be of no service to him. On the other hand, active euthanasia would reduce the patient X’s time of suffering much more effectively, therefore honoring his wishes. It may be argued that by employing active euthanasia, I am infringing on my patient’s right to life, but it would be wise to remember the patient’s autonomous request that I help him end his suffering. As a physician, I also must consider my duties to patient X: the negative duty to avoid injury and the positive duty to bring aid. As mentioned previously, the duty to avoid injury is often weighted heavier than the duty to bring aid. However, in this application of the positive and negative duties to patient X, the weight of negative to positive duties may change due to his circumstances and his own position on the matter. Patient X believes death is superior to his