The Morality Of Euthanasia

539 Words3 Pages
Active voluntary euthanasia is commonly referred to as a means of "killing" someone (as opposed to "letting someone die".) To define it more specifically, it is when at the request of the patient a physician administers a medication or treatment, with the intent of ending that patient's life. Philosopher James Rachels makes the case that it is, in some instances, morally acceptable. The following essay will explain Rachels' argument and provide some personal feedback as a conclusion. The first premise Rachels offers is this: "If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable." (The Ethical Life, p. 232) This means that everyone involved - doctors and nurses, the patient, and the family and/or friends of that patient must be taken into consideration and that those taking action must have every person's well-being in mind. Furthermore, the action taken may not intrude on any person's moral rights. Moral rights in this context can be taken to mean a justifiable claim on others; the owner of a right can say "I have a freedom/right to do, have or say X, and you have a duty to allow me my rights without hindrance." Rachels' second premise states: "In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights." (The Ethical Life, p. 232) He is completely right in this statement. He doesn't deny that there are cases in which active euthanasia wouldn't be the proper action to take, but he makes the point that there are at least some situations where this would be the best route for all. The conclusion to Rachels' argument is fairly obvious: "...At least in some cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable." (The Ethical Life, p. 232) It would seem like any basic modus ponens-style argument. It appears to be valid and correct.
Open Document