Bioethics 6b – Wi-Phi

2. Some people argue that there is no legitimate ethical distinction between actively euthanizing a patient and passively euthanizing them. Which of the following is NOT a point that such opponents commonly raise in objecting to this distinction?

Doctors don’t make an oath to literally do no harm. Obviously, they must sometimes harm a patient to effectively serve the patient’s best interests overall.

Killing only seems ethically worse than letting someone die because we overly associate the act of killing with malicious intentions. The real ethical difference isn’t based on what the person did or didn’t do, but on the quality of their intentions.

Killing someone and letting someone die are both actions, so there’s really no such thing as “passive” euthanasia. All cases of euthanasia are active and must therefore be prohibited.

Often, in situations where passive euthanasia is considered ethically permissible, active euthanasia would actually be an even quicker, easier, more autonomous method of helping the patient die. Thus, far from being unethical, active euthanasia is often the more ethical form of euthanasia.

Correct! Wrong!