James Rachels and the Bare Difference Argument
James Rachels and the Bare Difference Argument Euthanasia is a topic in philosophy that is surrounded by much controversy. ... In his article on active versus passive euthanasia, James Rachels puts a twist on the issue and argues not for or against euthanasia as an institution, but rather for the morality of active euthanasia. Rachels argues that active euthanasia, although different in many ways, should carry no more moral relevance than passive euthanasia. ... 78-80) Rachels expresses that it is wrong for the AMA to allow practicing physicians to withhold treatment in order to bring about death in a patient (passive euthanasia) but never allow a doctor to take action with the intent of causing death in a patient (active euthanasia). An example of a patient with incurable throat cancer is used by Rachels to illustrate the lack of sense in this policy. ... According to Rachels, this shows that “once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia,” due to its humane and almost utilitarian nature (Arthur, p. ... Rachels argues that parents should have the option to request a lethal injection – or some form of euthanasia – to end the life of the baby. ... 250) There is an insignificant amount of moral difference between killing someone and letting them die, according to Rachels. In his bare difference argument, Rachels tells the story of Smith and Jones and the moral situation in which they are involved in order to better show the lack of discrepancy. ... According to Rachels the answer is no. ... Rachels maintains that “if a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons.