Sullivan's Analysis Of The Difference Between Active Euthanasia And Suicide

Rachels tries to convince his readers that there is trivial difference between active and passive euthanasia and he implies that active euthanasia might prove to be the better option. Alternatively, Sullivan responds by writing, “If it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible” (213). However, he continues by affirming the validity of the A.M.A.’s clause claiming that, “We are hardly obliged to assume that Jones-like role Rachels assigns [represents] the defender of the traditional view” (213). Without a legitimate distinction between active and passive euthanasia, it ignores the legitimate moral question at stake that is should extreme efforts be used to save someone’s life even if the prospects of survival are minimal.

2. Does Sullivan agree with Rachels’ analysis of the difference between Jones and Smith? …show more content…
Rachels paints a scenario where Jones withholds ordinary means of help. An ordinary mean of help in this situation would have been simply pulling the child out of the bathtub. The clause in the A.M.A. is talking about extraordinary means of help. Extraordinary is defined as, “All those medicines, treatments, and operations which cannot be obtained without excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience, or which, if used, would not offer a reasonable hope or benefit” (214). Sullivan explains that Rachels’ argument replaces extraordinary means with ordinary means, and when one does this it is hard to argue against active and passive