Ideas from 'No Moral Difference' by James Rachels [1975], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Ethics for Modern Life' (ed/tr Abelson,R./Friquegnon,M) [St Martin's 1987,0-312-26602-2]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas

---

25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 2. Euthanasia

4053	If it is desirable that a given patient die, then moral objections to killing them do not apply

			Full Idea: The cause of death (injection or disease) is important from the legal point of view, but not morally. If euthanasia is desirable in a given case then the patient's death is not an evil, so the usual objections to killing do not apply.
			From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.102)
			A reaction: Seems reasonable, but a very consequentialist view. Is it good that small children should clean public toilets?

4052	It has become normal to consider passive euthanasia while condemning active euthanasia

			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.
			From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], 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.