James Rachels argues for both the use and moral significance of the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Rachels believes since both forms of euthanasia come to the same outcome which results in death, active euthanasia is preferred to passive euthanasia. Rachels considers active euthanasia as a more humane way of ending suffering, because it brings a speedy end to the suffering. “Is there, he asks, any genuine moral difference between drowning a child and merely watching a child drown and doing nothing to save it (586)?” Rachels tries to attempt and show the fact difference between intentionally killing and letting someone die without any help, which also states that active euthanasia is not any different or morally wrong. “Killing of any kind is right and wrong depending on the intentions and circumstances in which it takes place; if the intentions and circumstances are of a …show more content…
However Rachels makes a strong argument against the doctrine, suppose a patient is dying of incurable cancer of the throat that is in terrible pain, who can no longer bare the suffering, he is certain to die within few days even if the treatment is continued, but the person does not want live those days in severe pain. He asks the doctor to put an end to it, and his family also supports him. If the doctor simply withholds the treatment, it