Active and Passive Euthanasia
Активная и пассивная эвтаназия
1975-01-09
SCID: 54.1/mthhk6s8
Discuss with AI
American Medical Associationactive euthanasiakilling and letting diemedical ethicspassive euthanasia
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons. First of all, active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia, Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Thirdly, the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance. Fourthly, the most common arguments in favor of the doctrine are invalid. I therefore suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound.
Key Findings
1
Active euthanasia may be more humane than passive euthanasia in many cases.
2
Common arguments supporting the traditional doctrine are judged invalid, making the American Medical Association’s policy statement unsound.
3
The conventional doctrine can produce life-and-death decisions based on morally irrelevant considerations.
4
The distinction between killing and letting die is argued to lack intrinsic moral significance.
5
The traditional moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia is critically examined and challenged.
Research Object
The distinction and moral doctrine concerning active and passive euthanasia
Research Subject
the moral significance and permissibility of active versus passive euthanasia, including the validity of the killing–letting-die distinction and related medical policy
Publication Details
Publication Date
1975-01-09
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest