Final answer:
Active and passive euthanasia are morally equivalent as they both aim to end suffering and result in the termination of the patient's life. However, active euthanasia provides immediate relief from suffering, making it preferable.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that active and passive euthanasia are morally equivalent is true.
American ethicist James Rachels argued that active and passive euthanasia have the same intent and result, which is to end suffering and terminate the patient's life. However, active euthanasia provides immediate relief from patient suffering, while passive euthanasia may prolong the suffering. Rachels concluded that not only is active euthanasia permissible in cases where passive euthanasia is permissible, but it is also preferable because it brings immediate relief.
Therefore, the argument defending active voluntary euthanasia assumes that active and passive euthanasia are morally equivalent.