Question

What is Rachel’s main concern with allowing a patient to die? How does direct action by a doctor differ from cases where treatment is withheld from a patient?

Answer 1

Rachel believes what doctors can do with the patient's request. He assumes the doctor follows the American Medical Association's conventional doctrine and withholds treatment because the patient is in severe or unbearable pain, and the patient will die anyway. He argues that the doctor, actually withholding treatment, allows the patient to die even if the patient can suffer further if direct action is not taken. He assumes that after the initial decision is made not to prolong patient pain, it is part of the moral instinct that leads one to accept the option of reducing a patient's suffering and ensuring that the patient will die easily and peacefully. James Rachels presents a scenario in which a doctor does not treat a patient with a life-threatening illness believed to be treatable. In withholding treatment, the doctor ultimately kills. By deciding to prolong the patient's life, the practitioner is blamed for prolonging pain. This example reveals the American Medical Association prohibits active euthanasia and allows passive euthanasia. For the following reasons, he argues why doctors would put passive euthanasia in the same category as active euthanasia. First, passive euthanasia methods prolong the patient's pain because it takes longer to actively allow the patient to die than if active steps were taken. Second, Rachels suggests that passive euthanasia allows the practitioner to make irrelevant decisions.