According to Rachel’s argument, neither active euthanasia nor passive euthanasia is a moral approach of ending life. Both have no difference, as looking at someone ending his life, by terminating his treatment is as unethical as giving an overdose to let him die. Rachel supports neither forms of euthanasia as moral but believes that active euthanasia is preferable over passive euthanasia on the grounds that it is more humane. He further argues on euthanasia morality and expresses that letting someone die passively is relatively a slow process. It would be painful, whereas giving a lethal injection would pace up the process and it would eventually be painless. Thus, he supports active euthanasia over passive euthanasia; by going against American Medical Association doctrine.
Briefly describe one of Rachel’s arguments, and explain why it proves the AMA (American Medical Association) is guilty of hypocrisy.
According to one of the Rachel’s arguments, one point of the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting people die, which has no moral standing. It proves the hypocrite grounds, where AMA should be guilty of. The doctors without any moral importance let the person die just because of his personal stake, as the thought that life of the patient is supposed to be of no use to him is unkind; or considering that it would become an issue in their medical practice is a cruel act. Thus, they kill the person either by active euthanasia (not AMA policy), or let the person die by the means of passive euthanasia. The understandable humanitarian reason for letting a person die, or killing the patient shows the double standard policy; the AMA doctrine is playing with the lives of people and it is nothing but an intentional killing, by terminating the treatment, which is against the doctrine as well as humanity to end a life intentionally. But in reality, the doctors are ending the lives of patients by terminating their treatment. This is the dual face hypocrisy which AMA is guilty of.