Applied EthicsExplain and comment on James Rachels' view that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Do you agree with Rachels' view?Chung Hoi Yi, Mandy 105849074/24/2014IntroductionEuthanasia (meaning "good death") refers to "any action by which a person is intentionally killed or allowed to die because one thinks that the individual would be better off dead than alive ---- or, as when one is in an irreversible coma, at least not worse off. » (M.Tooley) Passive and active euthanasia Euthanasia, as its name means, is “the serenity (or happiness) of dying”. Euthanasia can be divided into active and passive. The first (active euthanasia) involves avoiding pain by taking life, while the second (passive euthanasia) involves avoiding the pain of the law, but allowing death. Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can be divided into two. The first is the voluntary death of patients, or the second. Deaths can be initiated by themselves or by others, which belongs to suicide, while the latter was killed.James Rachels's viewJames Rachels argues that it makes no moral difference whether the death is caused by someone doing something to provoke it, or by someone not. do everything to prevent this from happening. Causing death through inaction rather than action does not necessarily make you morally or legally innocent of any responsibility for that death. Passive euthanasia normally takes longer to cause death than active euthanasia. If the patient is suffering and if suffering is part of the reason for choosing euthanasia, then it is cruel and inconsistent to choose passive euthanasia which results in more suffering than active euthanasia. the active.Why passive euthanasia can be ...... middle of paper ......ion, believing that it is the most compassionate decision. Fourth, the family has a heavy financial burden, in addition to the social and psychological burden, family members may have to bear a heavy financial burden. A serious illness can deplete their savings in a very short time. These living tend to be survivors. Sometimes illness can take the whole family - be a parent or healthy and save money for your family. Thus, euthanasia is a mercy not only for the dying, but also for those who care for the patient-survivors. Fifth, it is to reduce the social burden as medical costs increase, the number of elderly people in society increases, and the resources needed to care for patients have also increased. This is why it is a moral thing to do.ConclusionTo conclude, active euthanasia is a moral thing to do in order to relieve patients' pain caused by illness..