Surname 2
Also, passive killing drives a moral distinction from active killing in the sense that
instead of killing someone because you cannot help it is better you let them live since there exist
a possibility that other people may come to their rescue. This can be seen in the cases of children
born with down syndrome, as some doctors and parents may opt for active killing the fact is that
such kids can still be assisted to adopt a normal life. “Most of these babies are otherwise healthy-
that is, with only the usual pediatric care, they will proceed to otherwise normal infancy. Some,
however, are born with congenital disabilities such as intestinal obstructions that require
operations if they are to live. Sometimes, the parents and the doctor will decide not to operate
and let the infant die.” (Rachels 512). It is therefore morally upright to adopt passive killing since
other people can bring the patients’ lives back to better conditions. For instance, instead of
killing those infected by deadly viruses like Ebola it is better to allow those willing to assist the
affected try.
Finally, the intentions of physicians in both cases can also help to differentiate between
the two euthanasia. Inactive killing the intention of the doctor is to bring about death and thus it
is morally condemned on this basis. For passive killing, on the other hand, the intention of the
physician is not to bring about death but to bring to and the person’s suffering. For passive
killing, the ceasing of treatment helps avoid prolonging the patient suffering. This evident from
the statement, “Now Smith killed the child, whereas Jones "merely" let the child die. That is the
only difference between them. Did either man behave better, from a moral point of view? If the
difference between killing and letting die were in itself a morally important matter, one should
say that Jones's behavior was less reprehensible than Smith's” (Rachels 513). From here, it is true
that to derive the moral appeal we must consider the intent of the physician.
In conclusion, from the ongoing debate, the four bases can be used to indicate the moral
distinction between the two. However, it is good to note that the two killings could be
challenging to create a moral appeal. For instance, even though active killing is bad, the question
is leaving a patient to die when you can help not evil. Furthermore, a change in view of death as
not being evil may help in adoption of active killing.
Works Cited
Rachels, James. The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford
University Press, 1986. Print.
Thomson, Judith J, and William Parent. Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1986. Print.
