Reference no: EM133231649

Question: Active and Passive Euthanasia" in the Timmons' Oxford Anthology Disputed Moral Issues.

Rachels discusses an AMA policy which was not law but was a professional guideline for doctors nationwide.The polify was that no doctor should participate in active euthanasia, but they may choice to withdraw "extraordinary measures" of life-sustaining treatment, (thus hastening death if not directly causing it).

While this policy has obvious benefits, such as affirming the right to discontinue treatments when they have become pointless, Rachels sees big problems with it.

What is bothering him so much? From a utilitarian standpoint, where does mere withdrawal of treatment leave the suffering patient?

Beyond this, Rachels see a deeper level of incoherence in the policy, which he tries to illuminate by his analogy of the murderous uncles. What main point was he trying to make with this analogy?

Note that philosophers use analogies in ethics to shed light on a moral dilemma that is difficult to resolve. By definition, an analogous scenario is similar to the one under dispute, enough so to be relevant; one the other hand it cannot be exactly the same, otherwise it would be an identical scenario, not an analogy. If an analogy is not really close enough to be convincing, it is a fallacy called "false" or "strained analogy." Is Rachels' analogy here helpful enough to shed light, or is it a false analogy?