Rachels then tells a story of another man who is in the same situation that decides to murder his cousin as well. But as he enters the bathroom, he sees the child slip, hit his head, and fall into the water. The man is happy because the job is basically already done for him so he just sits there and watches the child "accidentally die." Rachels argues that there is absolutely no moral difference between the two men because they both "acted from the same motive, personal gain, and both had exactly the same end in view when they acted."
Rachels wants to stress that there is no moral difference because of the decision that both man had made to kill the child so therefore, killing someone and letting someone die are in essence the same thing because of the goal that is wished to be obtained. Rachels then continues on by declaring that doctors that use passive euthanasia is the same morally as active euthanasia because the doctor is physically taking steps to make sure that the patient does not leave. This is the same as killing someone because you are obviously making an effort to end the person's life. Rachels isn't the only one who views this crucial issue this way.
In an article written by
Quantonics.com
regarding the "ethics of euthanasia," Gary LeBaron(the author), states that "it is sometimes claimed that the passive techniques are morally acceptable because they allow for a natural death, while active techniques independently cause death. But in the modern setting, these terms and distinctions are ephemeral."
As the essay begins to come to a close, it becomes even more clear of what Rachels intentions are. He again begins to attack the AMA's argument and its many flaws. He states that doctors are being unfairly forced into something that many of them may not believe in. As he stated early, doctors have been trained to help people and not just sit there and watch them die, so why then shouldn't active euthanasia be legalized?
Gary Lebaron, the author of "The Ethics of Euthanasia," claims that the AMA statement is basically against what we(the USA) stand for as a country. He argues that we, as well as doctors, are being forced to do something that we may not necessarily want to do. He states that the doctors are handicapped because of the fact that "force used to impose on others, against their wishes, makes what one thinks is best is not allowed."
Therefore not only does the AMA statement inflict pain on the patient, but it also limits the power and freedom of the patient, the doctor, and the patient's family. Rachels then wraps it up by declaring that there should be not set of official statements regarding euthanasia(like the AMA statement) because there are just so many different ways you could look at it; the AMA statement basically "leads to decisions concerning life and death made on irrelevant grounds."
