MAID- James Rachel

core thesis

it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human, sometimes permissipble to withold or withdraw treatment to allow the patient to die is incorrect.

passive euthinasia

witholding or stopping life supporting measures

active euthinasia

direct and intentionally killing of a person

4 arguments

active is more human

the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds

the doctrine rests on the distinction between killing and letting die that has no moral importance

the msot common arguments in favout of the doctrine are invalid

1 Active is more human

baby thought expirement

better to stop the suffering sooner than to prolong it

baby thought expirment

not suggesting the baby should die, but to have the suffering end faster instead of letting them dehydrate and wither away

2 the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds

the life is either worth living or not. making life and death choices is only possible because the doctrine exist.

Active is not worse. teh desitinction only satisfies the law but should have no say in medical ethics.

3 the doctrine rests on the distinction between killing and letting die that has no moral importance

Both motives and outcomes are the same. the point of witholding treatmnet is to kill

critique to 3

the moral difference is the cause of deth. Passive is death by illness and active is death by injection

Response to critic

The whole point of withholding treatment is to kill, if it weren’t there would be no distinction

4 the most common argument in favour of the doctrine are invalid

when someone doesnt do anything (passive), they are still doing something (letting the person die).