Analyzing Philippa Foot's Arguments Of Active Euthanasia

I am writing to you to offer you advice to assist you in determining the next steps in your father’s circumstance. To understand more about the dilemma confronting you, exploring what certain philosophers have concluded are right courses of action and thoughts. The first philosopher James Rachels uses his paper to disprove the assumption that active euthanasia is morally different from passive euthanasia. Then, another philosopher, Philippa Foot, hopes to argue against Rachels hoping to refute his conclusion. However, this letter references both their views to express why helping your father end his life is the most appropriate action to pursue.

To understand the ongoing debate about active and passive euthanasia, we must first look into Rachel’s

Furthermore, because this case involves children, a unique bias from the obligations we have for children is present. The conclusion of this case is that both of them are guilty, but not necessarily always bad, including the two rescues and Smith/Jones case. With arguments mounted on both sides, I still prefer active euthanasia in your father’s case. Initially, your father has given up his right to life Foot mentions, to alleviate his suffering, following your father's right to service is doing what is best for him and following his right to death, overriding Foot’s idea of the right of non-interference since constraining him to suffer violates his rights of service. Moreover, actively ending your father's life does not mean that passively doing so is better. The reason for agreeing with Rachels is because I believe that Foot’s analysis is a narrow account, covering only a small variety of cases, and does not offer flexibility in specific circumstances. The first is the argument about euthanasia; it does not account for suffering nor mention if suffering permits a patient to continue with active euthanasia. Furthermore, if the agent of the suffering is untreatable[cancer] and will inevitably kill that person, then their right to service is positive and ending the person’s life is in both our interests: the patient’s wishes are fulfilled, and the agent to assist them. However, this is not true here since the agent is not interfering with the person’s life. In addition, Foot does not include parental obligations we have towards our loved ones: hear, give back, and fulfill what is best for them. In your case, if your father requests the injection, you should as a family member fulfill the duty. For these reasons, I hope you consider all this information and choose active