Introduction
Evaluation of euthanasia as a phenomenon of social life is complicated from a moral point of view, as it requires the analysis of individual ethical issues associated with the interruption of life. Euthanasia can be carried out through specific actions performed by medical personnel, in which case, it will be considered active. On the other hand, passive euthanasia is characterized by the absence of any active effort from staff or relatives. It consists of the termination of medical care, which leads to death.
The two papers presented as material for this essay present various arguments regarding the morality of active and passive euthanasia. This essay aims to analyze the problem based on the proposed sources and explain the author’s position on the example of an article that seems more objective.
Summary of Articles
James Rachels’s article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” discusses whether leaving a person without medical care and active killing is morally comparable. The author seeks to equalize active and passive euthanasia in terms of ethics and permissibility, as he believes that allowing a person to die is not, by definition, a good thing (Rachles, 2017). Rachels explains his position on the example of various everyday situations so that the reader can feel the case more intensely and evaluate the moral choice of the heroes of the stories.
Philippa Foot, in her essay, questions Rachles’s point of view regarding the equal treatment of the morality of the two types of euthanasia. It is based on the concepts of justice and charity, separating the legal and ethical aspects of the issue (Foot, 1977). According to Foot, active killing is more of a violation of the fair treatment of other people. Letting die, in turn, refers to a charity failure, and then only if its validity is called into question.
In addition, the author touches upon the issues of voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, arguing that the assessment of the situation should always be given without taking it out of context. The choice of a patient’s fate by relatives and healthcare professionals can be ethical or unethical and should always be discussed in advance.
Comparison of Arguments
For me personally, Philippa Foot’s position on the ethical aspects of euthanasia seems to be more balanced and justified. Philosophically, the author substantiates the separation of the moral and regular approach to euthanasia, which looks pretty accurate since the logic of law and morality do not always coincide. Cutting off legality considerations, Foot focuses on the moral permissibility of euthanasia, either killing or letting die (Foot, 1977). Both depend on the context of the situation, and each case must be assessed individually. This position is ethically stronger than that of her opponent since Philippa Foot can more clearly describe each approach and evaluate it by introducing the concepts of charity and justice. She argues that active killing is ethically worse than not helping while not justifying either.
Conclusion
Thus, both articles provided for analysis reflect different aspects of the moral aspects of euthanasia, trying to give it an ethical assessment. James Rachles equates active and passive euthanasia in terms of ethical permissibility, while Philippa Foot insists on a more rational approach based on virtue ethics. For me, Philippa Foot’s position turned out to be closer and more understandable since it clearly outlines the criteria for comparing two types of euthanasia and provides a detailed analysis of its ethical aspects.
Works Cited
Foot, Philippa. “Euthanasia”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, no. 6, 1977, pp. 85–112.
Rachles, James. “Active and Passive Euthanasia”. Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Bioethics (10th ed., 2017, pp. 594–598). essay, Cengage Learning.