The Followings are scenarios regarding legality and difference between Active & Passive Euthanasia & Euthanasia itself.
- BBC- The philosopher James Rachels has an argument that shows that the distinction between acts and omissions is not as helpful as it looks. Consider these two cases:
- Smith will inherit a fortune if his 6 year old cousin dies.
- One evening Smith sneaks into the bathroom where the child is having his bath and drowns the boy.
- Smith then arranges the evidence so that it looks like an accident.
- Jones will inherit a fortune if his 6 year old cousin dies.
- One evening Jones sneaks into the bathroom where the child is having his bath.
- As he enters the bathroom he sees the boy fall over, hit his head on the side of the bath, and slide face-down under the water.
- Jones is delighted; he doesn't rescue the child but stands by the bath, and watches as the child drowns.
However, most people would regard any distinction between their moral guilt as splitting hairs.
Suppose Jones defends himself by saying:
I didn't do anything except just stand there and watch the child drown. I didn't kill him; I only let him die.
2. When her case came to trial, Claire Conroy was unable to move from a semi-fetal position. She was severely demented, had heart disease, hypertension and diabetes and her left leg was gangrenous to the knee; she had sores, couldn't speak, had only a limited ability to swallow, and had eye problems; she had a urinary catheter in place and was unable to control her bowels. She was able to moan and scratch, and occasionally smile when someone combed her hair. Claire Conroy eventually died before the courts were able to decide what to do. She was not a candidate for voluntary euthanasia. She had not made a living will. But her case posed very worrying dilemmas about end of life decisions. Pushing difficult deaths to one side will not make them go away or make them any easier.