In his essay, Active and Passive Euthanasia, James Rachels explains that traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two must be carefully examined. Rachels writes: "The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be critical for medical ethics." This idea can be challenged in a number of ways. One is that active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. Another is that this idea rests on a distinction between killing a patient and allowing them to die which, according to Rachels are morally indistinguishable - or more precisely the differences themselves have little or no moral importance. In this essay, Rachels rejects the American Medical Association's position on passive euthanasia as unsound. Rachels states: "This doctrine seems to be accepted by most doctors and it is endorsed in a statement adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association on December 4, 1973. "Rachels explains that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. This doctrine seems to be accepted by most doctors, and it is endorsed in a statement adopted by the American Medical Association in 1973.
Although this article was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January of 1975, it seems clear that this essay was intended for a far wider audience. There is no technical terminology. It is apparent that the writing style chosen by Rachels is deliberately selected to attract a wider audience that medical professionals. Rachels writes: "àa patient who is dying of cancer of the throat is in terrible pain which ...