Active and Passive Euthanasia

In 1973, the American Medical Association passed a statement prohibiting "sympathy and killing", but patients who can not cure admit that treatment is discontinued. James Rechels claimed in his article "Active and passive euthanasia" that active euthanasia should be avoided only to satisfy the law. The Rachels paper gives convincing logical arguments that enable positive euthanasia in certain situations. Rachel questioned the principle of deliberate termination of AMA rather than the use of special measures.

The aim of Rachel's article "active and passive euthanasia" is to ask the doctor about the difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia related to ethical issues. He suggested that doctors should not allow ethical issues to influence their judgment when developing guidelines for health policy and euthanasia. He used three very descriptive examples to support his view, leading to a morally insignificant distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.

Unlike active euthanasia, passive euthanasia means discontinuation or cessation of life-saving measures. Passive euthanasia does not involve actively inducing death, but it does not save life or prolong life-prolonging measures. Following the decline of life support or irreparable order is an example of passive euthanasia. Despite ethical controversy over active euthanasia, passive euthanasia is legal in all 50 states (Orfali, 2011). The main ethical difference between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia is the assumed cause of death. Passive euthanasia is usually considered to allow death, never kill, and patient illness is marked as a criminal. Estimate that the doctor is the cause of death and start euthanasia

The importance of active and passive euthanasia is widely believed to be different. To kill a patient is one thing (passive euthanasia), sometimes it may be allowed, but killing is not another thing (active euthanasia). Discrimination between the two forms of euthanasia is being strongly attacked by some philosophers because the fundamental difference between killing and death is unclear, clear, and not morally important. I propose to explore the nature of this distinction, its moral significance and its relevance to euthanasia.