How does Rachels respond to the objection that passive euthanasia is relevantly different than active euthanasia because in cases of passive euthanasia doctors do nothing to cause the death of the patient?
A) Doctors cannot be said to do nothing in cases of passive euthanasia because the act of stopping treatment is itself an action intended to cause the death of the patient.
B) Doctors are not responsible for deaths in cases of active euthanasia because it is the drug that ultimately causes death and not the doctor.
C) In both cases of active and passive euthanasia, the doctor does not intend the death of the patient, although it is an inevitable consequence.
D) Although doctors do play a role in the death of patients by passive euthanasia, they still do not directly harm their patients as in cases of active euthanasia.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Rachels argues that in passive euthanasia, the act of withholding or withdrawing treatment is an action by the doctor that is intended to lead to the death of the patient, thus challenging the notion that doctors "do nothing" in such cases.

How Does Rachels Respond to the Objection That Passive Euthanasia