Rachels J
N Engl J Med. 1975 Jan 9;292(2):78-80. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197501092920206.
The 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 that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons. First of all, active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia, Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Thirdly, the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance. Fourthly, the most common arguments in favor of the doctrine are invalid. I therefore suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound.
传统上对主动安乐死和被动安乐死的区分需要批判性分析。传统教义认为，两者之间存在如此重要的道德差异，以至于尽管后者有时是允许的，但前者总是被禁止的。这一教义可能会受到几个原因的挑战。首先，在许多情况下，主动安乐死比被动安乐死更人道。其次，传统教义导致基于无关理由的生死抉择。第三，该教义基于一种本身没有道德重要性的杀戮和听任死亡之间的区分。第四，支持该教义的最常见论点是无效的。因此，我认为美国医学协会支持这一教义的政策声明是不合理的。
