Essay#3
ENG110
Dr. Cook
Reality: the Missing Piece
A statement by the American Medical Association does not allow any person to intentionally terminate the life of another. The action is called mercy killing. However, the statement does allow a person to cease the employment of methods to prolong the life of another. Although in his essay, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, James Rachels attempts to persuade the AMA to rethink the morality of the statement, he is not effective enough to achieve his purpose. His thesis is that the statement is morally untenable because there is no moral difference between these two actions. He uses an example involving babies and two hypothetical cases of murdering a child to support his arguments. However, the example will be proven to be irrelevant, and the two cases are dangerous ways to persuade the audience because they lack reality.
Rachels begins with providing the audience with a typical example of euthanasia to let the audience know that there are situation where “active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia.” He makes a case of a patient whose cancer causes him great pain and will kill him within a few days. The patient, his family, and the doctor all agree to withhold his treatment and end his life; the doctor executes passive euthanasia, following the AMA’s statement. Rachels presumes that simply withholding treatment will cause the patient to suffer from the pain longer than giving a lethal injection, and states: “this fact provides strong reason for thinking that… active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia.” Although this example is suitable for his argument, it is not very effective; it is not an actual incident but simply his presumption.
However, Rachels refers to an example of babies, which is a more concrete case, to support his argument that in certain cases, “active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia.” He makes a point that “the process of being ‘allowed to die’ can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless.” He provides a fact that when an infant is born not only with Down’s syndrome but congenital defects that require operations to let the infant survive, the parents and the doctor will, sometimes, decide not to operate and let the infant die. He quotes a doctor Anthony Shaw who says “standing by and watching a salvageable baby die is the most emotionally exhausting experience.” This example of letting a baby die is intended to show that passive euthanasia is sometimes a really cruel thing.
Although the example seems to effectively help Rachels argue that prolonging one’s suffering is immoral, it turns out to be an irrelevant case because of an assumption he makes. If the audience agrees with the parents’ and doctor’s decision to not operate, the case will be effective because it appeals to the sympathy of the audience. Rachels assumes that his readers all support that decision. Therefore, he does not provide the reason why the parents and the doctor decide to let the infant die. Whether or not to euthanize someone is based on a choice, so he must explain what let them make that decision. In addition, euthanasia is for those who are dying with an incurable disease. However, the baby he mentions can be saved with the right operations. He himself states that they “are born with congenital defects such as intestinal obstructions that require operations if they are to live.” Thus, the example of allowing babies to die is not, in fact, effective to support the author’s argument.
By illustrating two cases of murdering a child, Rachels makes the argument that killing someone is no morally different than letting someone die. He makes up two similar cases; one involves killing someone and the other involves letting someone die. In the first case, a man drowns his cousin while the child is taking his bath and then arranges things to make it look like an accident. In the second case, a man plans to drown his cousin while the child is taking his bath. However, he walks into the bathroom and sees the child slip and hit his head. As a result, the child drowns “accidentally.” The first man intentionally kills the child, while the second man allows the child to die. Rachels argues that the behavior of the first man is as bad as that of the second man, from a moral point of view. With these two cases, he indicates that if a doctor engages in passive euthanasia, morally speaking, he is in the same position as engaging in active euthanasia.
It is dangerous to use these two cases because those who respond to reality do not respond to hypothetical cases. If an example is hypothetical, the readers will have a hard time relating it to their ordinary lives. Therefore, the example of murdering a child does not influence their thinking. Rachels also says that even if the second man defends himself by saying that he did not kill the child but merely let him die, his defense does not have any weight and “can only be regarded as a grotesque perversion of moral reasoning.” However, he can not provide any proof to this argument because these cases are not real events. What he argues here is a perversion as well. Thus, the two hypothetical cases of murdering a child are hardly effective to those who require the author to offer realistic evidence.
At a glance, Rachels’ arguments seem to be supported by logical, good examples. He is a professor of philosophy, so he knows how to make logical arguments. However, he does not take reality into account. By analyzing the effectiveness of his strategies carefully and thoroughly, it becomes apparent that most of his arguments lack facts, and effective essays need to be backed up by a number of reliable proofs. This is what Rachels is missing in his essay. I am still very interested in what he argues and, in fact, take the same position as he does. However, I can not conclude that he supports his ideas effectively.
© Rakuten Group, Inc.
