Active and Passive Euthanasia

James Rachels was an American philosopher who specialized in ethics and animal rights. Over the course of his career has written six books and over 85 essays. In 1975, Rachels wrote the article “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, in which he argued that the distinction so important in the law between killing and letting die which was based on the principle of double effect. He argued that if we allow passive euthanasia, we should also allow active euthanasia because it is more humane and that there is really no moral difference between the two. In my paper I have chosen two questions to answer concerning the article written by James Rachels.
Rachels offers two principal arguments against the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. What are these arguments? Passive euthanasia is when the doctor does not do anything to bring about the patient’s death because the patient ends up dying at whatever illness they may have. While active euthanasia is when the doctor does something to bring about the patient’s death, for example, the doctor gives a patient with cancer a lethal injection which causes the death of the patient.
Rachels claims that "killing is not itself any worse than letting die." What support does he offer for this claim? Do you agree? Why or why not? Rachel argues that there really isn’t a moral difference between the two because many believe that killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die. That’s why he asked the question “Is killing, in itself, worse than letting die?” He argues that killing is not nor any worse than letting someone die, therefore active euthanasia is not any worse than passive euthanasia. He also makes the point that passive euthanasia which is the process in which a person is allowed to die can take some time and it could be a very painful process for the