more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
It seems to have become accepted that passive euthanasia (by withholding treatment and allowing a patient to die) may be acceptable, whereas active euthanasia (direct action to kill the patient) is never acceptable.
Gist of Idea
It has become normal to consider passive euthanasia while condemning active euthanasia
Source
James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.97)
Book Ref
'Ethics for Modern Life', ed/tr. Abelson,R./Friquegnon,M [St Martin's 1987], p.97
A Reaction
He goes on to attack the distinction. It is hard to distinguish the two cases, as well as being hard to judge them.
| 7253 | In Utopia, legal euthanasia is considered honourable [More,T] |
| 4050 | We only allow voluntary euthanasia to someone who is both sane and crazed by pain [Kamisar] |
| 4051 | People will volunteer for euthanasia because they think other people want them dead [Kamisar] |
| 4681 | The Nazi mass murders seem to have originated in their euthanasia programme [Glover] |
| 4683 | Involuntary euthanasia is wrong because it violates autonomy, and it has appalling side-effects [Glover] |
| 4682 | Euthanasia is voluntary (patient's wish), or involuntary (ignore wish), or non-voluntary (no wish possible) [Glover] |
| 4684 | Maybe extreme treatment is not saving life, but prolonging the act of dying [Glover] |
| 4053 | If it is desirable that a given patient die, then moral objections to killing them do not apply [Rachels] |
| 4052 | It has become normal to consider passive euthanasia while condemning active euthanasia [Rachels] |
| 20882 | Euthanasia may not involve killing, so it is 'killing or not saving, out of concern for that person' [Hooker,B] |
| 20885 | Euthanasia is active or passive, and voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary [Hooker,B] |