Final answer:
James Rachels's essay argues that both active and passive euthanasia share the same moral justifications to end suffering, with active euthanasia being preferable for immediately ending patient suffering. His view contrasts with traditional medical ethics that prioritize non-harm and the historical prohibition of taking a life. The ethical debate includes competing philosophical perspectives and challenges existing legal frameworks.
Step-by-step explanation:
James Rachels's essay "Active and Passive Euthanasia" argues in favor of recognizing that if passive euthanasia is considered morally permissible in certain circumstances, then active euthanasia should also be permissible, and even preferable, due to its nature of ending a patient's suffering more quickly. Rachels challenges the conventional distinction between the two, by emphasizing that both active and passive euthanasia have the same intent to end suffering and result in the patient’s death. Nevertheless, active euthanasia is also treated as a more humane option as it doesn't prolong the patient’s suffering needlessly, unlike passive euthanasia. Rachels's arguments raise broader questions about the ethical dimensions of medical practice, the physician's role, and society's values concerning the end of life.
Conventional opposition to active euthanasia often stems from concerns about the wrongness of killing, the potential for abuse, and the ideal that physicians should do no harm. These concerns, however, contrast with other philosophical views, such as those of Peter Singer, who argues from a utilitarian perspective in favor of euthanasia when it prevents unnecessary pain and acknowledges a person’s quality of life, opposing only involuntary euthanasia. The discussion of euthanasia also encompasses legal aspects, with voluntary passive euthanasia being legal in several states and represented by advance directives like a DNR order, but poses ethical dilemmas when it comes to nonvoluntary forms where patient consent is not present.