Question

1. How does Callahan describe “private killing”? Why would euthanasia be a form of private 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

Callahan argued that euthansia involved an agreement between a doctor and patient to end his life made in private.He believed it is solely the right of the patient to decide whether or not to end his life.However,in euthansia one gives control to the doctor to decide for his life.He argued in euthansia one can never know whether the patient wanted to end his life or was it due to the fearful control of the doctor.As the agreement is done in private,there is no regulatory authority at discretion.He believed that if euthansia has to take place it must be legalised and checked down by authority whether or not the patient willingly wants to die.

Rachels claimed that there is no clear or rational criteria for distinction between active euthansia and passive euthansia.He argued that in many cases active euthansia was more preferable than the passive one.

He believed that active euthansia is not worse than passive euthansia as in both cases the patient is dying.There is no clear distinction in these two types of euthansia.He also claimed that the passive euthansia is even carried out in cases where patient's life can be saved.It is carried out on immoral grounds ,hence blurring the fine line between active and passive euthansia. In cases where the patient is suffering for too long and wants to end his life,active euthansia must be carried out.He further argued if active eurhansia is not morally permissible,then passive euthansia ought to be not permissible.