Applied ethics Explain and comment on James Rachels' view that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Do you agree with Rachel's point of view?Chung Hoi Yi, Mandy 1058490724/4/2014IntroductionEuthanasia (means 'good death') refers to "any action in which a person is killed intentionally or left to die because they believe 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 euthanasiaEuthanasia as its name means is " serenity (or happiness) in dying". In euthanasia euthanasia can be divided into active and passive. The first (active euthanasia) consists in avoiding pain by taking life, while the second (passive euthanasia) consists in avoiding the pain of the law, but allows the death to occur. Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can be divided into two. The first is the voluntary death of patients, the second. Deaths can be caused by oneself or by others, which falls in a suicide, while the latter was killed. James Rachels's View James Rachels argues that it makes no moral difference whether death is caused by someone doing something to cause it, or by someone not. do anything to prevent it from occurring. Causing death through inaction rather than action does not necessarily make you morally or legally innocent of 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 he or she chooses euthanasia, then it is cruel and inconsistent to choose passive euthanasia which causes more suffering than active euthanasia. the active one. Why passive euthanasia can be...... center of paper......ion, believing that this is the most compassionate decision. Fourth, the family has to bear 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 your life savings in a very short time. These living tend to be survivors. Sometimes illness can take away the entire family from parenting or health and saving money for your family. Therefore, euthanasia is mercy not only for the dying, but more compassion for those who care for patient-survivors. The fifth is to reduce the social burden by increasing medical costs, increasing the number of older people in society, and increasing the resources needed to care for patients. That's why it's a moral thing to do. Conclusion To conclude, active euthanasia is a moral thing to do to relieve patients' pain caused by diseases..