• Trent University

• PHIL 2390H

PHIL 2390 Critical Essay
1186 words
 
2
James Rachels’ “Active and Passive Euthanasia” and Daniel Callahan’s “When SelfDetermination Runs Amok” contain contrasting perspectives on the difference between killing
and letting die. The traditional principle maintains that letting die is morally permissible while
physician assisted death is not. James Rachels argues that killing is not any worse than letting
die. In contrast, Daniel Callahan argues that the philosophies of euthanasia and physician assisted
suicide are not an ethical debate but instead, are decisive moments in history. He establishes his
concepts and argues that medical practitioners should focus on being consoling. Physicians
should solely focus on alleviating pain in patients and should not be involved in the decisionmaking process of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
James Rachels argues that killing is not any worse than letting die. In circumstances
where passive euthanasia is acceptable under justification, there is no ethical reasoning for the
prohibition of active euthanasia. In some circumstances, active euthanasia is a more suitable
method than passive euthanasia. Rachels argues that he can comprehend why an individual
would not support both but is unable to understand the approval of one and not the other. The
rational for passive euthanasia is to reduce harm and suffering in a patient. Rachels contends that
the traditional principle in many cases of letting die are much worse for the patient than killing
them. If the patient is going to die either way, it should not be ethically acceptable to make them
suffer because regardless, the patient will soon be dead (Rachels 309). The process of passive
euthanasia is slow and painful, whereas active euthanasia is quick and painless. For example, a
patient is dying of terminal cancer, is experiencing unbearable pain and opts to end their life. The
reasoning for doing so is that the patient is in unnecessary pain and it would be unethical to
prolong his suffering. If the doctor extends treatment, it will take longer for the patient to die and
consequently, he may suffer more than he would have if direct action were taken (Rachels 309).