This document discusses the debate around active and passive euthanasia from philosophical and ethical perspectives. It outlines the arguments of James Rachels, who believes there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, versus the American Medical Association (AMA) view that active euthanasia is unethical. The document also discusses Philippa Foot's perspective that passive euthanasia may be acceptable in extreme cases, but active euthanasia requires more consideration of specific conditions. The debate centers around doctors' role in relieving patient suffering versus directly causing a patient's death.

1. PHILOSOPHY
ASSISTED SUICIDEDS/EUTHANASIA

2. 1
Introduction
Euthanasia can be defined as the way of relieving from severe and intolerable pain
through some deadly agent. Researches revealed that in many countries euthanasia have been
practicing frequently. According to the survey countries like US and are Belgium are practicing
euthanasia. Different cultures have different rational and irrational justifications for the
acceptance of euthanasia or assisted suicide. Greeks were the first one who derived the word
euthanasia, meaning; good death. Some cultures believe that to choose death for oneself is right
of a person (Philippa Foot 85).
The issue of Euthanasia is under discussion in the field of bioethics. According to the
researchers some cultures givefreedom to die whether from natural way or to get relieved from
unbearable pain. They can also choose a medicated way to end up their lives. According to the
author an argument has reflected that it is notjustthe matter of personal choice to choose the way
a person wantsto die, but in euthanasia there is a need of another person to practically implement
the particular way to end-up one’s life (Philippa Foot 85).
In many civilized societies it is considered to be an act, which is against the laws and
medical norms because it has reduced the human life importance. Some cultures emphasize the
concept that death of human is considered as totally a natural process. Euthanasia will allow a
person to handle and control the other factors such asthe place,the time to be dead or the way
he/she wants to die (Philippa Foot 86).
Euthanasia leads to a silent death to the people who choose their own way to end-up their lives in
order to gain relief from unbearable pain. Doctors and physicians feelthat it is their fundamental
responsibility to give relief and painless life to their patients. To heal their wounds and to give

3. 2
them soothing treatment to those pains that could be relief only by death. The cure to give less
painful death is euthanasia and it has been argued that it is immoral and unethical practice to give
this type of treatment. The (CEJA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs concluded after an
open discussion that the euthanasia can be adopted as one of the ways of treatment for different
patients, their level of fatal diseases, and the pain they are suffering from (Philippa Foot 87).
According to the American Medical Association (AMA) in the Code of Medical
Ethics,two points of views were described about the treatment providing ways to attain the
death. The first step isto giveeuthanasia death to the patient, who allows the other person to give
him treatment to giverelief from painful and uncontrollable condition of life. The other way is
physician-Assisted suicide in which the patient’s doctor or his physician would recommend or
give him a treatment to finish patient’s life. This could provoke the patient to become agree on
the acts which would end-up his life. Theresearch has points out that these both attitudes are not
recommended or are against to the profession of doctors (Philippa Foot 88).
Other issues are related to ethical values of cultures and the norms practiced in those
cultures. Euthanasia is also considered equivalent to murder someone. In the context of
euthanasia, there are two views, the libertarianand traditional views.James Rachels, a
philosopherfavors the libertarian view. According to him there is no such difference between the
two forms of euthanasia, i.e. active euthanasia and passive euthanasia (James Rachels 79).
The traditional view demonstrates that there is a very distinct and clear difference
between the active and passive euthanasia on the basis of moral values and norms practiced.
Theactive euthanasia is the way that patient’s doctor or physician adopted some direct
action or treatment to relief the patient from the unbearable pain of fatal disease. It might

4. 3
consider askillinga patient according to the will of patient itself or his family. The other way, i.e.
passive euthanasia would allow the patient to die naturally. It will prolong the treatment and
patient will remain in unbearable and painful condition till the death. Other ways are voluntary
euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia and non-euthanasia (James Rachels 78).
The voluntary euthanasia is allowed and acceptable in some cultures and it is considered
legal act. The non-voluntary euthanasia is generally not acceptable and is illegal in all countries
accepting extreme conditions for the infants in some of the countries. The third category is
directly addressed the killing or murdering act, i.e. involuntary euthanasia (Philippa Foot 89).
In this case there are arguments related to moral and bio-ethical acceptance of euthanasia
because of its active type and passive type, the condition and intensity of the situation in which
these two types of euthanasia are allowed in medical profession (James Rachels 78).
The concept of being right in the act of euthanasia is sometimes based on the beliefthat
death is a form of mercifulness or it is an evil for the human. There are many misunderstandings
about the concept and philosophy of life. People considered that life is the name of everything,
which should be smooth and in its good condition (Philippa Foot 90).
ARGUMENTS ON EUTHANASIA ISSUE;
The philosopher James Rachelsargues that there is no such difference between the
passive or slow poisoning and the active or quick actions of euthanasia. The AMA and the
Rachel’s arguments are two ends of one rope. According to AMA there is a rationale and
relevant differences between the active and passive euthanasia. The passive euthanasia might be
allowed in some extreme cases, but adopting active euthanasia is highly prohibited and immoral

5. 4
action. On the other hand, Rachel said that either you choose a prolong way or direct way to kill
or give relief to patient from painful life is the same (Philippa Foot91).
FOOT POINT & AMA VIEWS:
According to AMA the two acts have entirely different moral values and ethical
boundaries to be adopted. The active euthanasia might be allowed moral and bio-
ethicalacceptance, if the condition of patient is extremely critical otherwise there is no need of
euthanasia to be adopted. This will have rejected the profession and moral responsibilities of any
doctor or physician. In AMA there is no concept of mercy killing except in specific cases.
RACHEL’S POINT OF VIEW:
According to Rachel the quick action is better than prolong and painful treatment or to
wait the natural death. A doctor’s profession is to give relief from pain and heal the patients. He
favors the active euthanasia as a relief act from unbearable painful fatal disease rather than to
wait and let the patient allowed to die from his natural death. He provides evidence in favor of
himarguments against AMA arguments (James Rachels 78).
Rachel argues that for an infant that suffers from dehydration and severe infection has to
face deep pain. He claims that it is better to give them an injection, which could make it easy
death and give relief from prolong and unbearable pain.
According to Rachel it is not always immoral to give active euthanasia as a way of relief
to patients who suffer from diseases like Down’s syndrome or intense infections. According to
him letting someone dying with unbearable pain and killing someone is the same actions. There

6. 5
is no significant difference that can give authentic and rational reason for the passive euthanasia.
It is also equals to kill someone slowly (James Rachels 78).
The second argument he made was that there is no such logical realities on which the
doctors made the decision to give active euthanasia and it has no concern with the decision of
death and life of patient. He said that the decision not to operate the Down syndrome infant and
let him die by his own natural death is not humanitarian and based on irrelevant reasons that
should the child give active euthanasia or remain passive.
According to Rachel, people have misconception of active euthanasia that it is immoral
kill someone immediately through any medicine or treatment in which another person is
involved. They do not think that to let someone die in severe pain is also the same instead it is
more painful and unbearable.He said that morally it is not acceptable that doctor who is
responsible to give healing and relief from pain do not take any action and only allowing his
patient to suffer from severe pain and let him die badly in front of him (James Rachels 78).
He argues that if the choice of doctor is not related to some personal benefit and he
considered his patient’s health first, even there is no moral value difference between the killings
or between active and passive euthanasia and if the doctor’s act is considered right, then no
matters how he would treat his patient. Either chooses the active or passive euthanasia(James
Rachels 78).
AMA’s classifications:
On other side, the AMA clarifies the situation by specifying the condition of the patient
and also prohibiting the mercy killing. There is much to think that deliberately letting someone

7. 6
die with unbearable pain has some difference from killing someone or murder someone on the
basis of morality or ethics.
AMA argues that the intentional killing or act of active euthanasia will be against of the
doctrine of doctor’s profession and the cause for which doctors are serving to their societies with
their services. AMA has two different statements regarding to euthanasia. According to Rachel
the first one is related to killing or active euthanasia, which is considered as morally wrong. The
second one is related to passive euthanasia or letting die the patient painfully (Philippa Foot 98).
AMA favors its argument that in passive euthanasia the doctor is not doing any
wrongaction to bring the death to happen. But he waits for the time the patient will die naturally
due to illness. While in active euthanasia the doctor actually kills the patient in either way.
Rachel simply denies the concepts of AMA and believes that it is the same that if doctor is not
giving proper medicine to his patient and the patient dies due to unavailability of medicine and
care, and the doctor adopted the passive euthanasia act to let the patient died (James Rachels 78).
Difference between moral & legal actions:
According to him there is big difference between the illegal act and the moral actions. If
the doctor is not providing any attention to its tan it would be an illegal act, but if deliberately
and intentionally done something than it will be a criminal act. The bad thing which considered
is letting someone die or giving him passive euthanasia is that the culture has accepted the life of
human as it is ended after death. If it is taking as continual part of life then the philosophy of life
and death would be different (James Rachels 79).

8. 7
DOCTORS ARE LIFE GIVER NOT LIFE TAKER:
The argument about the killing or ending up human life can be considered as that life is
not permanent and it is scared in nature. It has to be demolished one day, as life is uncertain and
nobody knows what will happen in the next seconds. So a patient could choose its own way to
die (Philippa Foot 111).
Doctors perform the act of passive euthanasia in order to eliminate the fear of being
scolded from the society or blamed in committing the immoral and unethical acts. Some doctors
do not go for mercy killing and would not allow the people to prescribe the active euthanasia.
They avoid it and also the intensity of pain and condition from which they are suffering. Some
belongs to the doctrine of mercy and prescribe the active euthanasia.
Researchers argues that if any action does not harm any one’s moral values and not
hurting their personal interest than it is allowed to give the active euthanasia. Arguments
suggested on the doctrine of being merciful and giving active euthanasia to some situation is
meaningless because it has proven that the new and modern medicines are also not enough
capable of soothing the patient from their unbearable pain. And it is immoral to allow such a
technique for fewer of situations(James Rachels 79).
JUDICIARY CLAIMS:
Judiciary also claimed that it is allowed to give treatment like passive euthanasia or active
euthanasia to patients who are suffering from unconsciousness state of illness. The criminal acts
tag was eliminated from these types of extreme serious condition cases. Those patients prefer to
prescribe euthanasia from their physician or doctor. The physicians or doctors would not have to

9. 8
face any legal difficulties regarding to that. Many courts and legal authorities have cleared that
euthanasia in such cases is entirely different from assisted suicides (Philippa Foot 94).
Rachel’s arguments on assisted suicide:
According to him the concept of active euthanasia and passive euthanasia is the same in terms of
moral values and bio ethics. Both are related to give relief to the patient in his unbearable painful
condition. There should be no difference between the relevance of these two actions. He strongly believes
that it is better to give a quick relief from that painful condition instead of waiting to become naturally
dead. He emphasizes the doctors and the physicians that active euthanasia cannot employ to kill someone
deliberately, but it gives quick relief to your patient. It is not killing or murdering, but it is as same as you
are letting your patient in prolong state of pain and wait for the time of his natural death. Humanity will
see both of these actions morally and ethically equal.He has provided evidence to him argument that if
there is a way out for quick relief from painful ending of life than why prolong or mercy killing would be
adopted by the physicians. They only wanted to secure their professional code of ethics, i.e. not to end up
the patient’s life by their own. They named this attitude as immoral and unethical act by giving reason
that doctors are the people who relief their patients not kill them (James Rachels 80).
Researchers analyzed that most of the patients have to face chronic pain during the
prolong treatments in palliative care centers. The matter is not that who is right and who is
wrong, the doctors or the philosophers. The matter is that there should not be misinterpretation of
the two concepts; the mercy killing and the difference between the active euthanasia and the
passive euthanasia. Laws and morals should be treated separately on their specifications. Doctors
should realize that they are forced by the law about their responsibilities regarding
theirprofession, i.e. they are the healers not the life takers. The AMA safeguarded the doctrine of
passive euthanasia that it is according to the medical ethics, but it is not just only the passive

10. 9
euthanasia, but active euthanasia could also be an ethical act. There is no difference morally
between the active and passive euthanasia in actual regardless of some specific conditions.
Doctors only satisfy the charges of jurisdiction law regarding euthanasia in its two types
(Philippa Foot 98).

11. 10
Conclusion:
In the profession of medicine the responsibility of a physician or a doctor is to provide
relief and heal the painful condition of the patient. The two philosophers Rachel and
Philippa foot argues about the morality and ethical values of this profession regarding
active and passive euthanasia. Both of them provided their point of views to elaborate
some of the misconceptions about immoral and illegal actions adapted to give relief to the
patient, prescribed by his doctor or by selected by him. Phillipa has described very
critically that passive euthanasia is relevant or give reasoning to every situation of the
patient. Only passive euthanasia is morally and ethically allowed in extreme critical
situations such as prolong comma and hopeless unconscious state of patient.
Rachel’s arguments may be correct according to the social and emotional aspects of
human nature. He emphasizes the equality of mercy killing, i.e. passive euthanasia, which
is prolong and unbearable painful experience for patients to the active euthanasia. This is
quick treatment for relieving patient from intolerable pain in the form of death. He puts
the opinion that humanity does not allow anyone even the physician or doctor to remain
someone in prolong painful condition even they could relief him in shorter quick way.
He argues against the morality of passive euthanasia and immorality of active euthanasia.
On contrary AMA’s statement is backed up by the judiciary. Doctors and physicians are
allowed to adopt the passive euthanasia and active euthanasia in critical conditions and
they will not be penalized or charge any legal punishment. Under these conditions
Philippa Foot’s arguments are more authentic than Rachel’s.

12. 11
References
James Rachels Active and Passive Euthanasia.“The new England journal of medicine”.
Vol.292, January 9, 1975, pp.78-80
Philippa Foot. Euthanasia.“Philosophy & public affairs”. Blackwell Publisher, Vol.6,
1977, pp. 85-112