Euthanasia Essay: Examining Rachel's Equivalence Thesis

This essay examines the ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia, focusing on the distinction between active and passive forms. It explores the views of James Rachels, particularly his equivalence thesis, which argues that there is no significant moral difference between killing and letting die. The essay presents Rachel's arguments, using practical examples to illustrate his points, and discusses the counterarguments to his position. It concludes by supporting Rachel's perspective, emphasizing that from a moral standpoint, both active and passive euthanasia are equivalent, and that a doctor's actions should be guided by what is most comfortable for them. The essay highlights the complexities of the debate and the implications for medical professionals, while acknowledging the limitations of Rachel's argument regarding the extent of a doctor's involvement in a patient's end-of-life care. The essay uses a case study to analyze the morality of active and passive euthanasia.

Running head: EUTHANASIA
EUTHANASIA
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1EUTHANASIA
Introduction
Active euthanasia, which acts as the direct and deliberate cause of the patient’s death
by injecting potassium chloride was strictly prohibited in Canada until lately. Even, active
euthanasia is also prohibited in the United States. On the contrary, passive euthanasia, which
allows the patient to let die by not treating them or withholding medication is permissible in
both the countries. The argument of active and passive euthanasia depends on sometimes the
differences between killing and letting people die. The argument sometimes relies on the
moral distinction of the active and passive euthanasia as one is considered as direct killing
and other is just providing zero treatment to an afflicted patient and letting him or her die
naturally. However, the moral differences of the active and passive euthanasia are morally
equivalent to the James Rachels’ views. According to him, there is no reason preferring one
over the other as difference between active and passive euthanasia do not make any one of
the two morally better. In this essay, I will present Rachel’s equivalent placement of two
kinds of euthanasia and the reasons for supporting his views on euthanasia.
Discussions
According to Rachel, killing or letting die distinction of active and passive euthanasia
is unsuccessful as both form of euthanasia are morally equivalent. His view is not depending
on the acceptability of any one form of euthanasia. However, he has discussed about the
equivalent rationale of the two. Rachel has presented his argument with some practical
contextual basis, which has added realistic dimension to his standpoint. He has coined his
argument as equivalence thesis where he has stated that there is no moral difference between
the killing and letting die. His reason is simple. He simply put that the killing someone and
acts of letting someone die do not provide a morally good reason to support the judgment that
the former is worse than the latter.

2EUTHANASIA
However, in the equivalence thesis, Rachel did not prove any one or the other way is
right or wrong. He has given some reasons to accept the thesis by providing two cases where
one is involved with killing and another is engaged in letting die. However, his argument is
that these two methods of euthanasia actually do not make any differences to our moral
judgment. He imagined two situations where one person has killed his six-year old cousin
and another person let his cousin die. Now, in both the cases, morality cannot be a standpoint.
The question of morality in these two cases is an invalid question as one has killed and
another did not take any preventive measure to safe from death. Morality is a vague and
confusing parameter for judging the active and passive euthanasia. From the moral and
ethical point of view, letting die is not bad than killing. Rachel has argued this by
commenting that if one is permissible or objectionable other must be the same. Actually, in
his view, any one method cannot be morally better than the other method. According to him,
there is no bare difference between killing and letting die in the moral ground of actions
concerning the life and the death. Therefore, he wanted to call this argument as the ‘Bare
Difference Argument’.
The only moral ground for the medical professionals could appear if the illness is
curable but application of any form of euthanasia has already occurred. However, the
methods, which has been used is not important and carries no difference as from the point of
view of morality, both the process is same. Rachel has given an excellent example to prove
this. He stated, “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’ (Rachels, 1975).
The possible counter arguments have stated that the cause of someone’s death in case
of active euthanasia makes the moral difference between the two. In case of the passive
euthanasia, there are no direct or indirect causes of the human agent in patient’s death, stated
by Ramsey. However, from ethical ground, I could support Rachel’s argument, which stated

3EUTHANASIA
that if not anyone wants to be the cause of someone’s death, then surely, anyone does not
want to be the cause of someone’s letting die. However, it is impossible to conclude from this
about the relatively desirable ground of passive euthanasia.
Another two counter arguments presented in the Rachel’s essay are not satisfactory to
me, as these provide no logical biasness of any one out of the two. Both of the counter
arguments might be logically correct from the point of view of direct killing, however, both
the arguments are illogical from the moral ground as killing and letting someone die are the
same immoral act.
Conclusion
It can be concluded by stating that Rachel’s view of the equivalence thesis is more
convincing to me as killing and letting someone die is same action from the ground of
morality. These two types of euthanasia have no difference in the core. Considering the
patient’s condition when euthanasia is thinkable, killing or letting him die causes no harm to
him. However, if a doctor does not want to involve in direct killing, he would feel hesitant in
letting someone die without giving him treatment. Thus, Rachel’s argument is more open-
ended. He has no ground to support or defend any one of the two types of euthanasia. He has
rejected the other counter arguments by his equivalence thesis. However, Rachel’s argument
could limit doctor’s action by how far a doctor can go to help a person. By pointing out no
differences between active and passive euthanasia, Rachel could influence the doctor’s action
in the realistic ground. However, the doctor could do whatever comfortable for him. Rachel
has mentioned this point at the end of the essay, however, it is not clear throughout the essay.

4EUTHANASIA
Reference
Rachels, J. (1975). Active and Passive Euthanasia. New England Journal Of
Medicine, 292(2), 78-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejm197501092920206